Re-thinking the house that Ruth built

I think education and Major League Baseball have a lot in common, and I’d love to orchestrate and sit in on a few brainstorming meetings with Arne and Bud. Maybe it’s my love of both education and baseball that drives me to constantly draw comparisons between the two. I’d like to think that these comparisons are natural, but I know that at sometimes the comparison will be forced, so bear with me as I enter the world of blogging.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been visiting a number of charter schools in New Orleans. It’s been a fantastic learning opportunity and while much of the experience has been positive, I have to raise one question – why, for the most part, do schools still look they way they do?

Now with the exception of some ballparks whose nostalgic charm is actually a huge selling point (here’s looking at you Fenway), the ballparks that existed when Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams roamed the outfields are no more. As players’ and spectators’ respective needs have changed, so have the parks. Players demand better training facilities, bigger lockers, air conditioning, and they get it. Spectators ask for more legroom, better views, better quality and a greater selection of food (we’ve long given up on getting cheaper food), air-conditioned boxes, and Monster seats. We get it. Sure there are some purists out there who believe the game is best watched from a wooden bleacher seat with a warm beer, but they are on the spectator sport endangered species list (along with knuckleballers, left handed catchers, and those that believe the Cubs will win a World Series.) The point is, MLB and the owners listened to the needs of their employees and customers, and acted upon it, even in the face of immense cost. For example, the Twins’ Target Field took about 2 years and $480 million to complete ($350 million came from taxpayer’s dollars to cover construction and infrastructure costs.) It also ranks as one of the most popular MLB stadiums.

Now in New Orleans, as more and more charter schools are authorized, the race for facilities has become an incredibly important and cutthroat race. Some charters have taken over existing school structures, while others are piecing together mobile home units to create surprisingly well laid out buildings. With the exception of the mobile home units, many of these school buildings that house the “new guard of education” look like the buildings that housed the “old guard of education.” The classrooms, the desks, the hallways, and the cafeterias all resemble the schools that my grandmother attended many years ago. I’m going to assume that at some point in time, some brilliant architect came up with the blueprint for a school that met the educational needs of the students at that time. I’m going to say that as someone not too far removed from their K-12 experience, and a future school leader, I don’t think the structures reflect the need of our students today.

Why is that? What makes us think that students best engage when seated in rows of desks that are neither comfortable nor overly useful? Why are classrooms still built to seat on average 25 kids? Why do school buildings exude drabness? As the function of education has drastically changed over the past 40 years and will continue to do so as we close the achievement gap, why isn’t the form following? I’m no Eero Saarinen, but what I know of modern architecture is that form should follow function. I am all but that sure education is not paying attention to the form follows function idea. Baseball has learned that it’s the experience of the game, not just the game itself that the fans crave. They know that if MLB stadiums resembled my high school field in Owego, NY, that the MLB would be doomed. When are we as educators going to understand that our school buildings are quashing the student learning and the positive experience of education? Better yet, when are we going to do something to change the experience for our students?