The Review Process

Recruit 12 independent-minded reviewers from five countries with varying professional backgrounds, accept 85 submissions representing every conceivable form of educational architecture, throw away the rulebook for review and mix well. A recipe for disaster? No! A gourmet meal of ideas and inspiration. A meal at which gorillas are welcome to sit at the table.

Gorillas were just one way in which this year’s wonderful group of submissions caught our attention. Among the many outstanding entries received, each of us had our own reasons for believing that some projects were better than others. Rather than agreeing on a rigid set of requirements in advance, the criteria emerged during the review itself.

Reviewers identified what they felt were the most exemplary projects and told the rest of the team why they felt that way about a project. Some reviewers changed their minds after seeing what others had to say. The wide disparities in the votes after the first round started to disappear as reviewers went back and reexamined the projects in more detail. In the end, there was remarkable agreement regarding the top awards. It is safe to say that the Honor and Merit award categories had substantial across-the-board support, whereas the Citation and Recognized Value award winners had their champions and their critics.

Despite the differences, all reviewers tried to adhere as closely as possible to two program purposes outlined by our chairman Bruce Jilk:

• Identify innovative ideas in the design of learning environments.
• Find planning and design process approaches that would support the realization of these innovative ideas.

Jilk also reminded us to look for ideas in words, graphics, and photographs. For those of us used to judging architectural submissions by the architecture, these ideas were a departure of sorts. We needed to understand that good architecture does not exist in a vacuum. We had to ask questions like, "Is this the kind of place in which learners will be engaged and happy and free to participate in a variety of activities?" or "Will this school’s architecture inspire environmental consciousness?" or "Will this project serve as a catalyst to rethink the very idea of learning?" or "Will this place become a community icon and a lasting symbol for lifelong learning?" Difficult questions without many obvious answers.

The review process has been an incredible learning experience for us school planners. Not just learning about the way in which so many great projects came to be, but having the opportunity to discuss them with a distinguished group of peers from many corners of the world.

Project affiliations were presented anonymously and reviewers did not vote nor comment on their own projects. Additionally, reviewer projects were further penalized by a markdown to dispel any perception of bias in their favor. By also publishing all the details about each selected project on the Web, winning reviewer projects are afforded further close scrutiny by our wider community of peers and school professionals.

Reviewers conducted this evaluation entirely via the Internet, and while some in the group did not know each other at the start of the process, the many e-mail exchanges allowed reviewers to get to know one another by the end of the program. This form of review worked well for all of us who have very busy schedules, but we all wish we had the opportunity to visit each school when construction is complete and when the buildings are in use so we can see everything we need to know.

With that limitation understood, we have to agree with our own 800-pound gorilla, Steven Bingler, who said, "My take on it is that there are a lot of people out there who are thinking differently and [being more innovative] about the design of learning environments." So come, sit at the table with us and partake of the feast that awaits.