CROSS researchers Tuuli From, Antti Saari and Anna Kristiina Kokko recently posted a column on ILE policies in Politiikasta, a Finnish popular science and policy commentary site.
Read below the English summary of the text:
Over the past decade, Finnish school facilities have undergone significant changes inspired by the concept of innovative learning environments. These changes often prioritize architectural and pedagogical trends over research-based evidence. Economic pressures, demographic shifts, and indoor air quality issues have driven municipalities to either close, renovate, or build new schools. Since 2016, most new school buildings have embraced open and flexible spaces, replacing traditional classrooms. This shift reflects a belief that modern society demands new learning environments, distancing from teacher-led instruction and rigid classroom layouts.
However, these open-plan schools—sometimes dubbed “open office schools”—have sparked public debate. Critics argue that such spaces fail to meet the needs of both teachers and students, often being noisy and chaotic. The lack of corridors and the need to move through active teaching spaces disrupt the school day. Common areas like cafeterias and lobbies are also frequently poorly designed for everyday school life. These issues highlight a disconnect between visionary design and the practical realities of school operations, revealing deeper problems in the knowledge base guiding school planning.
Currently, school space design is driven by architectural ideals, pedagogical innovations, and financial constraints, but lacks sufficient grounding in social science research. Without critical, research-based scrutiny, important aspects such as educational equity and the functionality of everyday school life are overlooked. The article calls for a more interdisciplinary approach to school planning, one that includes insights from sociology, education, and other social sciences to better understand how spaces affect learning and inclusion.
Although municipalities have considerable autonomy in school construction, they often follow international trends and office design principles. Finnish building laws and guidelines (like RT cards) provide some direction, but do not mandate open-plan designs. The widespread adoption of these layouts is thus more a reflection of prevailing trends than of necessity. The authors argue that to ensure school spaces truly support learning and well-being, planning must be informed by robust societal research—not just architectural vision.
CROSS 