vision2020
Re: Schools for young people
I am somewhat skeptical that building design has anywhere near the impact of
family structure when it comes to influencing kids to join gangs. In all of
the criminal justice/sociological studies I've read, none have ever
mentioned the factor of building design as having any relevance to whether
or not a child feels the psychological/sociological need to join a gang.
Of course, with the plethora of studies and research being done today,
it wouldn't surprise me to see such a theory proposed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William K. Medlin" <dev-plan@moscow.com>
To: "Moscow" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 6:06 PM
Subject: Schools for young people
> I heartily concur with most of what Duncan says (post 2/12 8:13 AM)
> about the intrinsic values of our older school structures and their
> intimate relationships with community and the bonding roles they
> serve. In the history of educational planning and administration over
> the past century, the "business" oriented philosophy coming out of
> Taylorism (production-line concepts, economies of scale, etc.) has
> pretty much dominated school architecture, the results of which are
> all across the country: huge sprawling structures housing between
> 1500 and 2500 youngsters, creating not a sense of ownership or
> attachment but rather alienation, loneliness (many kids have little
> or no bonding experiences), anonymity, and sometimes "gang" like
> tendencies alien to wholesome values that speak to caring, loyal and
> accepting behaviors. Such things do serve well those who prize big
> schools for their competitive sports potentials.
> While in some respects these monsters do "offer" more options
> and space for broader activities, they are unwieldy as social
> "encampments" and as effective means for giving each child the kinds
> of attention he/she deserves from a basically nurturing institution
> -- a surrogate of the family which releases its child each day for
> further education and nurturing.
> And how about logistics? Locations where kids can walk, bike
> or car pool enhance the sense of community, of belonging to
> traditional values and ethics. Plopping a large structure out on the
> edge of a town does just the opposite. I can recall vividly two new
> high schools in Ann Arbor, MI, a college town once much like Moscow.
> Both were carved out well within the city's main residential areas --
> perfect locations -- where all my kids went to school. I've lived the
> experience. Moscow students do need more athletic and other creative
> arts spaces for sure. But must these needs be satisfied only "way
> out" someplace on the edge of farm land? Do they really need "40
> acres"? Will every kid then want 4 wheels to go to school? Must we
> further congest the few main arteries running in and out of the city?
> As in other major planning issues, we need a competent and
> fully representative task force in which all citizens can place
> trust, and which will not end up forcing through a decision that
> lacks genuine features serving the best interests of both school and
> community -- they are bound together!
>
Back to TOC