Critical Review

Making this awards program unique is its mission to focus less on aesthetics and more on the design of effective learning environments, a goal that allows the jurors some room for critical review.

Jurists noted that, in spite of the large number of entries, many designers did not push the limits of school design. “I think that by-and-large, we are still looking at building types that have the sameness about them, with teacher centered classrooms,” notes juror Dr. Anne Taylor. “In some instances the furniture, tables, chairs, lockers, and configuration of computers lined up against the wall do not bespeak innovation or newness, but rather the sameness of ‘school’ packaged in newer boxes with newer materials,” she says. Her observations also were supported by architect and fellow juror Prakash Nair, who observed that “unfortunately, only a small number of designs tries to challenge the pre-eminence of the classroom itself as the seat of all learning. Even where many alternative places to learn are provided, the classroom remains a very traditional teacher-centered space.” Nair also commented on limitations in the use of technology in project designs: “There is some lip-service paid to the power of technology, but for the most part, we are still measuring progress by the number of data ports provided in each classroom or the number of empty conduits that bring some technology into the classroom.”

Juror comments also reflect the positive:

"I would like to see less repetitive traditional classrooms and some credit given to planning for some classrooms to be design studios, museums, cultural centers, greenhouses, animal husbandry places…not just the same old classrooms.” – Anne Taylor

“The L-shaped classroom, the Kiva, and the cluster classrooms shown in the Singapore school, and others like them, were adept at addressing the idea of daily change.” – Prakash Nair