Understanding the environments in which schools operate (part 6): The spatial environment
In a number of previous articles, I have outlined the different environments in which schools operate and have argued that it is important for managers of schools to develop an understanding of these environments, because in understanding these environments these managers will be able to make prudent decisions as regards the tasks with which they are entrusted and will, therefore, enjoy some amount of effectiveness. The environments in which schools operate, with which I have engaged in previous articles, are the physical, socio-political, economic, political and technological environments.
However, we should also consider another type of environment in which schools operate which I will refer to as the spatial environment. This is probably not the best descriptor of the phenomenon, space, which I want to explore, as the idea of space is bound up with that of environment. Anyway, the idea that I am putting forward, here, is that managers of schools need to be concerned about, and some are, indeed, concerned about the space in which their schools operate. I will put forward the ideas of two eminent scholars who have engaged with the idea of space to illustrate to managers of schools as well as other staff the critical nature of the space in which they operate and, therefore, to provide them with some “food for thought” and action.
When we think of the concept of “space” we should think of much more than a void or vacuum. The work of Focault and Lefebvre, as well as other scholars on space, has provided us with multiple ways of thinking about space.
For example, Michel Focault in a lecture written in 1967, and published in 1984 entitled, Of Other Spaces, Heterotopias, has pointed out what may be considered the defining characteristic of space. According to him, spaces are defined by sets of interactions. And these interactions take place in many settings/spaces.
Furthermore, Focault posits two views of space. There is a utopian view of space, that is, the ideal, the imagined, the conception of the perfect. And, there are also heterotopias, that is, those spaces which are “real” and which have certain functions, functions which may change as society’s perceptions of these spaces change (http://foucault.info/documents/heterotopia/foucault.heterotopia.en.html.
For the purposes of this article, I will go underneath the deep philosophical arguments presented in Lefebvre’s work, borrow his concept of space in the urban setting and attempt to show the relevance of his view of this space to understanding the school as a cultural space.
Lefebvre has posited that space is a social construct. That is, every society creates its own space and has different ways of doing so. This space that society creates is a repository for all of its practices. This space reflects society’s vision of itself. However, this space is not static. It is replete with movement. This space is created through an interaction of a number of forces and the nature of the space which is created determines thought and action.
As regards this space [the urban space], Lefebvre has drawn our attention to a number of spaces that are evident within this larger space. He has referred to these spaces as follows: there is the conceived space, for example, architectural designs; the perceived space, that is, the everyday perception of space and the pattern of its use; and there is the lived space, that is, what users make of the space. But, the big point here is that the space is created to fulfil a vision that the society has of and for itself.
Therefore, as it relates to schools we can explore this cultural space in relation to its design, the perceptions of how it is to be used and how it is actually used.
However, the conception, perception and actually use of space may be determined by a number of factors. Thus, according to Lefebvre to understand the spaces that society creates we must understand the method of their creation.
The method of creation of the cultural spaces of schools, for example, borrowing from Lefebvre may, in different contexts, be undergirded by such factors as public policy, philosophy, economics, sociology and the aesthetics. Let’s examine how this may work in the cultural space of the school by briefly examining these factors.
First, public policy, generally, refers to government’s plan of action for society as a whole or segments of society. These policies are usually outlined in policy documents and are disseminated to the populace, nowadays, by the mass media. For example, a society may have a public policy for pre-primary and primary education with the accompanying details. There may be another for secondary education and another for tertiary education. Managers of schools ought to know the policies that government has devised for the education system.
Second, philosophy is a discipline that systematically and critically unpacks “weighty problems” of society such as the meaning of “knowledge” and “being” among such other concepts, (see works of Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes among others). But, philosophy may generally be defined as the beliefs, attitudes and values that underpin action. Therefore, in the case of schools, government makes public policy and underpinning this policy may be a philosophy as to what the school ought to do. As a result, the cultural space of the school may reflect whatever this philosophy is.
Third, the spaces that society creates are determined by economics. That is, cost effectiveness. Specifically, the space created for the school will be based on the amount of resources that governments possess. Resources will be expended based on a number of factors, not least of which are the communities in which schools are sited and the expectations that government has of the schools.
Fourth, the spaces of the school that government creates will reflect how people in that setting interact and function in that space. For example, in many schools there are areas specifically created for teachers, students, administrative staff, ancillary staff and managers of schools and, the design and use of these spaces reflect the relations and interactions that prevail in the designated spaces. For example, many classrooms still feature the traditional design, teacher at the front of the room, students sitting at attention in rows and columns extending to the back of the room. Therefore, in this space, it is evident that primacy is given to the teacher. We may want to examine the other spaces in the school to see if we can determine the social relations that take place in them. This is the sociological dimension of space.
Fifth, there is also the aesthetic dimension of space. That is, the creation of a space that appeals to the senses in terms of its beauty, cleanliness and other pleasant virtues.
From Focault’s and Lefebvre’s work on space, managers of schools may discern that there may be a method in the “madness” of their cultural spaces. These factors which undergird the spaces that society produces, according to Lefebvre, bring life to the philosophy that informs their creation. Therefore, if managers of school accept that their cultural space, the school, is a social construct intended to achieve a purpose it may foreground their role in their schools and in the education system as a whole.
A number of managers of schools have been complaining about the spaces in which they have to work. Some of these managers complain that they have no space. This statement could mean any of a number of things, depending on the viewpoint of the manager of school who makes the statement. For example, from talking with managers of schools, I have learnt that the school having no space could mean that the school buildings take up almost, if not all of the physical space allotted to the school. As a result, the school body – staff and students feel constrained or confined in this setting. Second, the school having no space could mean that there is no room for expansion to meet the increased demand for places in the school. Third, the school having no space could mean that the school does not have enough desks and chairs to accommodate the number of children assigned to the school. Fourth, the school having no space may also mean that the school does not have enough classrooms or rooms to meet the needs of students engaged in academic, sports or other extracurricular activity. What I have discovered, though, is that when a manager of a school makes the statement that her/his school has no space, she/he is implicitly saying that the performance of the school is hampered by the school having no space.
Teachers, too, imply that their performance and by extension that of their school is negatively impacted by space, this time, too much space. A school having too much space becomes an issue when the teaching space is dispersed among multiple campuses; or there are great distances between the buildings, for example, without there being adequate transit points from site to site or between buildings. This situation is aggravated during any season, rainy or otherwise, when teachers and students have to get from one point on the campus to another in order to meet the requirements of scheduling. If an hour long class is concluded at 10 a.m. and another is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. this is a problem if there is rain, if it is too hot and just because of the distance that the teacher has to negotiate. In my mind, there is a simple solution to this problem.
From some managers of schools, therefore, I have learnt that space is limited and limiting. From some teachers I have learnt that space is expansive but limiting.
These managers of schools and teachers are concerned about the space of their schools and the extent to which it allows for effective action. However, managers of schools and teachers should also be aware that the space of the school is a site of interactions and that the nature of the space in which the schools operate may determine the nature and quality of the interactions that take place in these spaces.
Managers of schools should also realise that they are expected to manoeuvre within the spaces in which they operate. And, in their manoeuvring they should keep in mind the ideal of the education that their schools “ought” to provide as dictated by policy, while they manipulate the reality in which they work to come as close as possible to this ideal.
They should keep Lefebvre’s analysis of the representational spaces close at hand because it opens up for them an understanding of the system’s expectations of them. It is only when they understand the aims and rationale of the environments in which they operate will they be able to define their roles in their environments and be able to present cogent arguments for change as well as devise strategies to effect change.Photo above courtesy of pixabay.com
Read the other parts of this article at the following links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Comments
Post a Comment