Over the past two to three decades, a developing enthusiasm has become evident in the policy and politics of education, visible in many nations and internationally, for a series of interconnected proposals about education, centring on the need for new ways of learning that it is claimed are needed to prepare young people for less predictable, digital futures (EC, 2022; OECD, 2020; Leat et al., 2012).  Although these ideas will of course play out differently in countries with differing histories, geographies and financial constraints, it is possible to see a 21^st century global trend of educational reform that could be compared with 20^th century trends such as the steady adoption of mass compulsory primary education (Martens and Windzio, 2022). 

Commonalities include new curricula based on competences rather than only on knowledge, which are evident in a range of countries (e.g. Finland, Scotland, Uruguay, Kenya) and, perhaps most tellingly, are supported by various international organisations (OECD, 2020; Njeng'ere, 2020).   Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs), understood as forms of educational practice resulting from flexible, versatile school design together with the adoption of diverse styles of learning that recognise and assume more student autonomy (TKI, 2019), appear to be part of this phenomenon (Cardellino & Deed, 2024; Grannäs & Stavem, 2021).  This is notable, given that the ‘hegemony of the classroom’ (Burke & Whyte, 2021) suggests the ILE is an example of ‘reform that is truly radical and very difficult to bring about’ (Anderson-Levitt, 2003: 19).

Informed by the need to balance acknowledgement of global trends and narratives with local experiences and policy ‘enactments’ (Maguire et al, 2015), the intention of this paper is to interrogate this proposal of a world culture of innovative school design and practice, showing first how ILEs map onto the transnational reforms put forward by Anderson-Levitt (2003: 9).  Furthermore, these recent spatial developments come with a history: in some countries, there have been attempts previously to change the student learning environment through ‘progressive’ reforms centred on pedagogy, but with explicit implications for school resources, settings and organisation. Specifically, pedagogues in a number of Global North countries were previously encouraged to alter their practice, including their use of space, to be more child-centred in the 1970s (Plowden report, 1967).  As is evident from scholars writing more recently (Brogden, 2007; Imms, 2018), this is a story we think we know: a narrative of troublesome teachers being unable or unwilling to adapt.

In countries that have toyed with similar educational reform before, but in rather different ways (e.g. New Zealand: see Williams, 2014; Finland: see Tapaninen, 2024), but, perhaps more importantly, in a country that has not (e.g. Uruguay: see Cardellino, 2022) we must ask what narrative is developing this time, why, and who is driving it? 

We will situate our exploration within the education literature of school space, which includes global terms (most obviously, ILE) and reports intended for an international audience, alongside local change initiatives. Our focus, however, will be on recent developments in three contrasting countries (Finland, Uruguay and New Zealand) where we have access to some combination of policy and media documentation; plans and records of recent school buildings that include some ILE settings; and on-the-ground observations of this process. These countries have been chosen partly due to access considerations but they are also a suitable focus for the comparisons we want to make, including between wealthy and middle income countries; differing histories of open plan school design; Europe and elsewhere. The literatures of globalised change (Anderson-Levitt, 2003), policy-led national school reform (e.g. Tyack & Tobin, 1994; Cohen & Metka, 2017) and educational change (e.g. Cuban, 1993; Priestley et al., 2011; Woolner et al., 2018) will be used to understand ILEs, and the instances of these in our three case countries. In exploring what is (really) happening when, for example, it is found that teachers in a specific country are struggling to adapt their practice to open flexible spaces (Grannäs and Stavem, 2021), we will be mindful of what is happening elsewhere and has happened previously. We will apply a framework of three mechanisms developed by Giudici (2021) to explain the ways that the actions of Swiss teachers, in the area of language teaching in the 1800-1900s, were able to affect policy. Through applying this typology of (i) voicing experience, (ii) subversive enactment and (iii) open resistance to the present situation of open and flexible school design, as it is developing in our case countries, we will advance understanding of what is happening and what the outcomes are likely to be. We will ask to what extent these mechanisms are evident, including exploring whether they are being amplified by other actors or interest groups (e.g. media, politicians, IT companies) and, if so, what activities are evident at the national and international levels.

As architect and sociological researcher, Ian Cooper commented in relation to school design and use in England in the 20th century, ‘those who seek to influence primary education – albeit by seeking buildings designed to facilitate preferred patterns of use – are involved in politics, for they are involved in attempting to shape or reform the future’ (Cooper, 1982: 43). Our intention with this paper is not so much to prove or disprove this statement but rather to consider the balance of international and national politics in contemporary debate and decisions about ILEs together with the place of teachers within these discussions. It has been noted by scholars of educational reform that the local position of teachers is key to how their influence plays out. Specifically, if they are trusted as professionals, their explicit opposition to a reform is likely to be more effective in challenging policy as well as ensuring everyday classroom practices are not reformed (Cohen and Metka, 2017; Giudici, 2021). The implications of teachers being an organised force are complicated since being organised would be expected to increase their influence, but Giudici points out that being perceived as a political or self-interest group can work against the perception of professional status. The teachers in our three countries are positioned rather differently, with higher professional status in New Zealand and Finland, than in Uruguay, but with teacher agency and autonomy most evident in the Finnish system. These contrasting positions of teachers, together with differing local politics, but overlaid by the same global narrative about 21st century learning and its spatial requirements will enable us to consider the reasons for progress so far with ILEs and suggest likely international results of this ‘truly radical’ reform.

Anderson-Levitt,K.M.(2003) Local meanings, Global Schooling, Springer. Brogden,M.(2007) Plowden and Primary School Buildings: a story of innovation without change, FORUM, 49(1 & 2):55-66. Burke,C.& Whyte,W.(2021) The spaces and places of schooling: historical perspectives, Oxford Review of Education, 47(5):549-555 Cardellino,P.(2022) Arquitectura escolar para la educación primaria: un studio del caso de Uruguay, ACE: Architecture, City and Environment,17(49):10497 Cardellino,P.;Deed,C.(2024) Interactions between Design Innovation and Educational Change in Non-Western Schools. Buildings,14,716. Central Advisory Council for Education.(1967). The Plowden Report. Children and Their Primary Schools. London:HMSO. Cohen,D.K.& Metka,J.D.(2017) Why Reform Sometimes Succeeds: Understanding the Conditions That Produce Reforms That Last, American Educational Research Journal,54(4):644-690. Cooper, I.(1982) Design and use of British primary school buildings: an examination of government-endorsed advice, Design Studies,3(1):37-44 Cuban,L.(1993) How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1890-1990. European Commission (2022) Investing in our future – Quality investment in education and training, Publications Office of the EU Giudici,A.(2021) Teacher politics bottom-up: theorising the impact of micro-politics on policy generation, Journal of Education Policy,36(6):801-821 Grannäs,J. &Stavem,S.M.(2021) Transitions through remodelling teaching and learning environments, Education Inquiry, 12(3):266-281 Imms,W.(2018). Innovative learning spaces: Catalysts/agents for change, or ‘just another fad’? In S.Alterator & C.Deed(Eds.),School space and its occupation: Conceptualising and Evaluating Innovative Learning Environments(pp.107-118).Amsterdam: Brill/Sense. Leat,D,,Thomas,U.,Reid,A.(2012) The epistemological fog in realising learning to learn in European curriculum policies. European Educational Research Journal,11(3):400–412 Maguire,M.,Braun,A.,Ball,S.(2015) ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit’: the social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,36(4):485-499 Martens,K. &Windzio,M.(2022) (Eds), Global Pathways to Education: Cultural Spheres, Networks, and International Organizations, Switzerland:Palgrave Macmillan. Njeng'ere,D.(2020) Kenya’s journey towards the implementation of a competency-based curriculum: strategies, opportunities and challenges, UNESCO International Bureau of Education OECD (2020). What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum. OECD Publishing. Priestley,M.,Millera,K.,Barrett,L.,Wallace,C.(2011) Teacher learning communities and educational change in Scotland: the Highland experience, British Educational Research Journal,37(2):265–284 Tapaninen,R.(2024) 1980-ja1990-lukujen koulut–normisidonnaisuudesta monitoimitiloihin ja oppimisympäristöihin. https://www.rakennettuhyvinvointi.fi/fi/koulurakennukset/1980-ja-1990-lukujen-koulut-normisidonnaisuudesta-monitoimitiloihin-ja-oppimisymparistoihin TKI.(2019). Innovative learning environments. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Tyack,D.&Tobin,W.(1994). The ‘grammar’ of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal,31(3):453–479. Williams,M.N.(2014) Building Yesterday’s Schools: An analysis of educational architectural design as practised by the Building Department of the Canterbury Education Board from 1916-1989, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Woolner,P.,Thomas,U.,Tiplady,L.(2018) Structural Change from Physical Foundations: The Role of the Environment in Enacting School Change. Journal of Educational Change 19(2):223–242.