The Spirit of Place

In his book, Spirit of Place (1997) Lawrence Durrell, one of the early travel writers, created a collection of letters and travel essays over a thirty year period.  Born in India and of English decent, Durrell spent his early years in school in India then moved to England.  After receiving a small inheritance from his Father, Durrell promptly quit school to become a writer.  After a few short years in England, Durrell spent the rest of his life travelling the world and lived in Egypt, France, Yugoslavia and Argentina.  Each place he visited, he saw himself not as a sightseer, but instead he became deeply rooted into the daily culture, conversation and character of each place.  The essence of his letters and stories, “are about living in places, not just rushing through them…the important determinant of any culture is after all—the spirit of place” (p.49).

From the first loosely organized schools of Socrates and Plato, where the gentry and well-bred gathered in the centre square to discuss ideas of the day, to our current context where students are sorted into and reside in classes resembling egg-crates, the story and structure of education, miseducation and learning is one that is partially defined by the geographical and architectural context in which the teacher and learner live.  In a time when ideas were freely explored by the male, wealthy, land-owning class to the current context where students are compartmentalized are sorted according to race, class, ethnicity and gender, reflecting on the spirit of place and its effect on education is important.  Further, in light of the current new curriculum in the Province of British Columbia understanding how the spirit of place affects our philosophy of education is necessary.  

In his poem, Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson writes,

I am a part of all that I have met

Yet experience is an arch wherethrough

Gleams that untravelled world, whose margin fades

For ever and forever when I move

Each of us is defined by our roots, our families, and our geographic location as well as by the housing and schools in which we spend some of the most impactful years.  Looking at the structure of the buildings where our children spend days and years, perhaps to some even an eternity, we need to ask if the current schools accurately allow for true democracy as well as meeting the curriculum. Does the space define our children, or can we use the space and manipulate it to meet our ends?  How do the architecture of schools and curriculum connect?

Classrooms were originally built in the forms of regular standard sized square rooms with windows and often two exits. The rooms were teacher centred and desks were usually in rows that faced the front of the room.  Here is where you would find the classroom teacher, the black board, and the teacher’s desk.  This set up is reflective of the prevailing thought of how children were to be educated.  The teachers was seen as the font of all knowledge and the children were empty vessels to be filled up with the knowledge, ideas.   Standardized tests based on rote memorization were used to assess students so they could then be sorted according to ability. In truth, this system resulted in sorting students according to race, ethnicity, gender and socio economic groupings.  Schools were well organized sorting machines.

The one room colonial style classroom from the 1700’s was a simple structure usually made from local materials.  Students sat in rows where the younger ones were up front and the older ones in the back. These style of classroom was conducive to rote learning.  Even in the 19th century when public schools began to be built in large urban centres, the sorting of students continued.  These big buildings built during the industrial model of schools had gymnasiums, auditoriums and were sometimes open to the public.  These rooms were designed for only one type of instruction and that was direct instruction.  Children were still seen as empty vessels and the teachers was the sage on the stage ready to fill them up with knowledge and ideas.  Students who didn’t fit the norm, and had a diversity of need, struggled with poverty, were ethnic minorities often had more difficulty being successful in this model.

Imagine in your mind the layout of the traditional classroom that was built during this industrial era.  When we look at most of the schools today, not much has really changed architecturally.  What is changing is what teachers are doing within those walls.  Many schools have flexible seating plans, different heights of desks and chairs, carpeted areas and mobile computer classrooms.  In addition, what we hope to find in most schools is the Great Hall, or central meeting area.  Deborah Meier, in her Ted Talk on democratic schooling, explains that having a central place of gathering signifies the belief that every person in that school is welcomed and valued.  Further, every person, whether they are a child, adult, teacher, custodian, support staff and parent have a voice that is important and necessary.  School architecture is a reflection of the notion of democracy that is valued within that school and community.

Phillis Wheatley Elementary School in New Orleans, built in the 1950’s had shaded outdoor walkways, raised classrooms, covered play spaces, glass windows instead of exterior walls.  This school had creative and modern architecture, and was built with the idea of having the outside as a vivid part of the inside of the classrooms.  Greenspace, bright light, high ceilings and welcomed spaces created a school that is both historically and architecturally significant.  The building and subsequent demolishing of Phillis Wheatley Elementary is shrouded in controversy, however despite all of that what remains important is the spirit of place of that particular school was more progressive than many other schools in the same time period.

In the new project based and inquiry approach to learning, architecture of a building has the opportunity to help or hinder learning.  Schools of the future will have great meeting halls, multi purpose rooms, flexible seating and the outdoors and indoors will be almost interchangeable.  Ceilings will be high and exterior walls will be windows.  At the end of the day, however, it almost doesn’t matter what the structure looks like if the teaching is not flexible, universal in design and ready to support the diversity of students that enter the classrooms.