Recently the Danish field of Secondary Schools has experienced a rise in awareness of the significance of school buildings and their design. A development established already in the Danish field of Primary Schools (de Coninck-Smith 2011), and could one add, in the European politics of education emanating from transnational institutions as UNESCO (Delors 1996, Prinds 1999) and CERI (1997). The paper works to establish a relation between the European ideology of education and the Danish case.

The new school buildings are all accounted for in terms of necessity as to secure the schools for the future. These schools for the future look to a certain extent alike, as distinctive features as use of materials as concrete and glass, open spaces and sights as well horizontally as vertically and redesigning of the space of learning, the former class room, dominate the buildings. An extensive use of ICT is also widespread. Based on a fieldwork carried out in one of the newly build and least traditional secondary schools situated in a recently established part of Copenhagen, these tendencies are explored in terms of their origin.

Ørestad Gymnasium is a highly profiled secondary school; build by the municipality of Copenhagen in corporation with Danish up-and-coming young architects. In what is phrased as an unusual process (Lotz 2008) several teachers, parents, architects and local government workers participated in the preparatory work using a method called ‘designing by research’ (de Jong 1992). This preparatory work is highly influenced by the above-mentioned European produced ideas of schooling.

The paper aims to provide an understanding of the travelling of ideas, and how the ideas intersect with local interest and professional competency and hereby produce an ideologically based local output. Ultimately the concern of the study is to clarify the relation between everyday schooling and educational policy aiming towards ‘designing the future’.

Theoretically, the paper subscribes to a Roland Barthes inspired notion of mythical language and its functioning (Barthes 2000), and hereby constructs the objective, Ørestad Gymnasium, as a mythical form appropriated by a mythical concept. Accordingly Ørestad Gymnasium is to be understood as mythical architecture (Ibid.). The task is to reconstruct the content of the mythical concept as produced.   

Research questions

• Which and whose conceptions of learning dominate the process of ‘designing by research’?
• How are these conceptions of learning designed and given form in the work of the architects?
• And how are these conceptions of learning related to the European ideology of education?

Augé, Marc (2008)[1992]. Non-places. An introduction to super modernity. London: Verso. Barthes, Roland (2000). Mythologies. London: Vinage. Bertelsen, E. (2010). ’Når glas beskyttet – om eksponering og synlighed i nyt dansk gymnasiebyggeri’. I: Dansk pædagogisk Tidsskrift, nr. 3, 2010. Bertelsen, E. (2013). Curriculum til fremtiden – til karakteristikken af ’den nye gymnasieskole’ gennem perspektiver på forskning, institution og elevgørelser. Afhandling indleveres primo marts til Institut for Medier, Erkendelse og Formidling, Københavns Universitet. CERI (1997). Schooling for tomorrow. http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/centreforeducationalresearchandinnovationceri-schoolingfortomorrow.htm de Coninck-Smith, Ning (2011). Barndom og arkitektur – Rum til danske børn igennem 300 år. Århus: Forlaget Klim. de Jong, Taeke M. (1992). Kleine methodologie voor ontwerpend onderzoek, Meppel: Boom. Delors, Jacques (1996). Learning: The Treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century, Unesco Publishing. Jellingsø, Ole (2001). “Den historiske dimension. Gymnasiebyggeri i 100 år”, i Gymnasiepædagogik nr. 23, Dansk Institut for Gymnasiepædagogik, Syddansk Universitet. Han, Byung-Chul (2012). Transparenzgesellschaft. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz Berlin. Kirkeby, I.M. (2003). ’Skitserende programudvikling – En metode’. I: Fremtidens Universitet, udgivet af Statens forsknings- og uddannelsesbyggerier. Tilgået 14/11/12: http://www.ubst.dk/publikationer/fremtidens-universitet/FU.pdf Københavns Kommune, Uddannelses- og Ungdomsforvaltningen (2002). Skitserende programudvikling – Fremtidens gymnasium og HF. Københavns Kommune, Uddannelses- og Ungdomsforvaltningen (2003). Konkurrenceprogram – nyt gymnasium i Ørestaden. Lotz, Katrine (2008). Architectors – specific architectural competencies. Ph.d.-afhandling forsvaret ved Den kgl. Arkitektskole, København. Nielsen, Anders Pors (2008). ”Ørestad Gymnasium – grænseløs læring og pædagogiske bespænd”, i Geografisk Orientering, December 2008, 38. årgang, nr. 6. Prinds, Erik (1999). Rum til læring – en idé- og debatbog om nye læringsformer med IKT. Center for Teknologistøttet Uddannelse. Tonnesen, Lars et al. (2002). Rummene i fremtidens gymnasium og hf – rum, relationer og fysiske udtryk. Københavns Kommune, Uddannelses- og ungdomsforvaltningen (Bygningsområdet, Udviklings- og Planlægningsområdet). Tschumi, B. (1994). Architecture and disjunction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.