Classroom of the Future - Sense Publishers

A. SCHRATZENSTALLER
(Tosch, 2003, p. 233). This is the progressive aspect of pedagogy at the turn of the
20 th century and can serve as a point of reference for the Classroom of the Future
one hundred years later at the turn of the 21 st century. Cooperation between
pedagogy and architecture proved to be an eminently innovative impetus for school
reform.
Extensive financing for the implementation of the new concepts was understood to
be of vital importance if the attempted educational innovation was to succeed. New
schools and classrooms were built; more and additional teachers were appointed; and
material, equipment, and furniture were provided on a large scale. Considerable sums
were spent and in Germany, for example, there were even genuine competitions
between cities on who could best implement innovations at school (Linton, 1984).
Yet, progressivism also had to experience that financial support was limited. At the
end of the day, it had to be conceded that the large majority of schools had not been
architecturally converted into progressivist places of education and that far too few
schools had been built. It was of considerable symbolic significance that the
Dammweg School in Berlin – one of the most prestigious projects of progressivist
architecture in Europe – never made it beyond its detailed blueprints. At the same
time, progressivism too readily allied with the economic considerations of American
pragmatism, which in the course of time began to considerably influence school
architecture and classroom design. Economic streamlining entered the process
through the backdoor, as it were, and gradually took over to the considerable
disadvantage of progressive impetus. In accordance with the contemporary economic
discourse, school rationalisation became common ground for school reforms and
gradually led to educational considerations giving way to economic rationale
(Kemnitz, 2003). With reference to the situation in America, David Labaree
pointedly puts into a nutshell what also applies for Europe: “[…] pedagogical
progressives had the most impact on educational rhetoric, whereas the administrative
progressives had the most impact on the structure and practice of education in
schools” (Labaree, 2005, p. 280). From the beginning of the 20 th century onwards,
there has been a theory-practice divide which has separated that which is considered
important by educational theory and that which is economically accepted by society
and politics. History does indeed seem to repeat itself. The economic objections
which Robson faced once again reared their head when new pavilion schools were to
be built a few decades later. An examination of OECD-statistics from the past few
decades further strikingly reveals that school reform hardly seems to be a matter of
educational concepts but rather of monetary considerations. Given that this is an
ongoing process, cutting down on the education of its children seems to be highly
accepted by society.
An implementation strategy for the Classroom of the Future may therefore be to
effectively bring together experts and practitioners from various domains which are
important with respect to school architecture. The publication at hand, which is the
result of a workshop related to the topic, might also represent an initial and
important step in this direction. Guaranteeing the financing of new school concepts
will, as history teaches, be pivotal. It is one thing to repeatedly point out that the
present schools are clearly not suited to preparing our children for the 21 st century
32