As an art educator, it has been a personal struggle of mine to motivate students in an academic setting, and to empower them within and beyond school walls. I believe that those schools walls are more than just physical boundaries and borders, but are an integral factor in how and what children can learn. Literature has given a broad view of the relationship between a school’s architecture and its pedagogy, identifying how paint colors or the arrangement of desks can influence student actions. Although these studies provide relevant information for educators and architects, investigation that reports from the student’s perspective are lacking in number. This thesis explores the impacts of the participatory design strategy of a newly renovated high school. Through active and often artistic involvement, students contributed to the appearance of their learning environment. This resulted in a tight-knit community, a boost in self-esteem, a sense of ownership and a source of empowerment. The findings of this study add to the body of resources aimed at child-centered pedagogy, and aim to serve as a model for empowering students through the arts. / text

In Britain, the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ (BSF) programme numbered among its aims: ‘the building of sustainable communities in which students and teachers alike [could] thrive’ (DfES, 2003, p.88). Modern, purpose-built and ecologically efficient architecture was regarded as central to this. What is less clear is how particular architectural features could contribute to the positive effects hypothesized in BSF literature. Vischer (2008) has identified three areas in which environmental psychology research explores the effects of workspaces and workplace design on individuals: Territoriality and Belonging (how much users feel a part of the organisation, as a result of using the space); Productivity (how the space affects the performance of the individual, the team and the organisation) and Satisfaction (how users feel about the physical and aesthetic aspects of a space). However, the experiences of children working in schools may be very different to that of adults working in offices; and the role of the architecture in these different contexts may also vary between them. In addition, there remains an opportunity to explore these issues in secondary school settings as BSF was initially set-up in response to concerns about secondary school architecture. This research re-conceptualized Vischer’s three areas as Community (Territoriality…), Working Successfully (Productivity) and Well-being (Satisfaction), to explore experiences of architecture in a school context. This study over two phases operated from a Realist perspective (Blaikie, 1993) and used an Exploratory Evaluation Research methodology (Clarke, 2005) to explore the responses of students and staff to the architecture in 8 secondary schools: Schools A-D in the South-West of England (total sample n=105 students; n=26 staff) and Schools E-H in London (total sample n=83 students; n=2 staff). Schools A, E, F and H are BSF schools; B, C, D and G are non-BSF (mixed architectural styles). Phase 1 used questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to explore student and staff responses to the architecture in their schools; and how this architecture affects their sense of Community, Working Successfully and WellBeing. Phase 2 used a classroom-based computer-aided design (CAD) activity to explore whether participants could offer architectural design solutions for classrooms and schools, according to their needs. Thematic analysis revealed common definitions of Community, Working Successfully and Well-Being across all schools; design choices which aimed to maximize natural light; beliefs that SEN status is central to school functioning well as a community; and beliefs about the role of curved architecture in improving acoustical quality. Implications for EP practice are considered and future research directions proposed.

Os Centros Educacionais Unificados da cidade de São Paulo foram implantados em duas fases administrativas: na gestão da ex-prefeita Marta Suplicy foram construídos 21 CEUs (Fase vermelha) e na gestão do ex-prefeito José Serra, continuado pelo seu sucessor Gilberto Kassab foram construídos 24 CEUs (Fase azul). Estes complexos educacionais foram apresentados à população como inovação educacional com sua arquitetura escolar diferenciada e suscitaram as principais discussões ideológico-partidárias nos debates eleitorais ocorridos ao final do ano de 2004. Estiveram, desde a sua inauguração, com forte presença nos diferentes meios de comunicação, especialmente na mídia impressa. Podem ser denominados como praças de equipamentos sociais e apresentam um modelo de gestão pública idealizada para a participação popular através de suas instâncias administrativas, dentre eles o Conselho Gestor e o Colegiado de Integração. São regidos com base num documento denominado Regimento Padrão, que normatiza suas ações e estabelece as diretrizes para seu funcionamento, de forma que não haja sobreposição de regimentos entre os diferentes órgãos das diversas secretarias presentes nestes centros. Os atributos arquitetônicos, educacionais, sociais e políticos fazem com que os CEUs sejam submetidos a um fenômeno social denominado de amplificação pública, o que potencializa nestes espaços a Educação Social. O presente trabalho analisa múltiplos aspectos do funcionamento e implantação destes centros numa perspectiva comparada de gestão publica. / The Unified Education Centers (local acronym CEUs) in São Paulo were implanted into two administrative stages: in the administration of former Mayor Marta Suplicy were built 21 CEUs (red phase) and the management of ex-mayor Jose Serra, continued by his successor Gilberto Kassab were built 24 CEUs (blue phase).These educational complexes were presented as educational innovation with its distinct architecture school and created major ideological and political discussions in the electoral debates that happened at the end of 2004.Since its launching, they had a strong presence in different media, especially newspapers.They were named as social facilities squares (park schools) and were conceived as a model of public management open to people\'s participation through its administrative bodies, among them the Management Council and the Board of Integration.They are regulated based on a document called the Standard Rules, which regulates their actions and establishes guidelines for its operation, so there is no overlap between the different departments present at these centers.The architectural attributes, as well as its educational, social and political aspects turn these CEU-centers (Centro Educacional Unificado) into a social phenomenon called social amplification that leverage these spaces to an opportunity of Social Education. This paper examines various aspects of the functioning and deployment of these centers in a comparative basis of public management.

Os Centros Educacionais Unificados da cidade de São Paulo foram implantados em duas fases administrativas: na gestão da ex-prefeita Marta Suplicy foram construídos 21 CEUs (Fase vermelha) e na gestão do ex-prefeito José Serra, continuado pelo seu sucessor Gilberto Kassab foram construídos 24 CEUs (Fase azul). Estes complexos educacionais foram apresentados à população como inovação educacional com sua arquitetura escolar diferenciada e suscitaram as principais discussões ideológico-partidárias nos debates eleitorais ocorridos ao final do ano de 2004. Estiveram, desde a sua inauguração, com forte presença nos diferentes meios de comunicação, especialmente na mídia impressa. Podem ser denominados como praças de equipamentos sociais e apresentam um modelo de gestão pública idealizada para a participação popular através de suas instâncias administrativas, dentre eles o Conselho Gestor e o Colegiado de Integração. São regidos com base num documento denominado Regimento Padrão, que normatiza suas ações e estabelece as diretrizes para seu funcionamento, de forma que não haja sobreposição de regimentos entre os diferentes órgãos das diversas secretarias presentes nestes centros. Os atributos arquitetônicos, educacionais, sociais e políticos fazem com que os CEUs sejam submetidos a um fenômeno social denominado de amplificação pública, o que potencializa nestes espaços a Educação Social. O presente trabalho analisa múltiplos aspectos do funcionamento e implantação destes centros numa perspectiva comparada de gestão publica. / The Unified Education Centers (local acronym CEUs) in São Paulo were implanted into two administrative stages: in the administration of former Mayor Marta Suplicy were built 21 CEUs (red phase) and the management of ex-mayor Jose Serra, continued by his successor Gilberto Kassab were built 24 CEUs (blue phase).These educational complexes were presented as educational innovation with its distinct architecture school and created major ideological and political discussions in the electoral debates that happened at the end of 2004.Since its launching, they had a strong presence in different media, especially newspapers.They were named as social facilities squares (park schools) and were conceived as a model of public management open to people\'s participation through its administrative bodies, among them the Management Council and the Board of Integration.They are regulated based on a document called the Standard Rules, which regulates their actions and establishes guidelines for its operation, so there is no overlap between the different departments present at these centers.The architectural attributes, as well as its educational, social and political aspects turn these CEU-centers (Centro Educacional Unificado) into a social phenomenon called social amplification that leverage these spaces to an opportunity of Social Education. This paper examines various aspects of the functioning and deployment of these centers in a comparative basis of public management.