Camilla Berggren-Tarrodi
Projektledare
Contact Camilla
Photo:
Taylor Flowe
This week, discussion has been lively about the design of school environments after the Liberal Party proposed legislation to eliminate “ugly” schools. Regardless of one’s political views or what one considers beautiful, there is an important point in talking about the physical environment of schools at all. It matters.
But here is some news: we do not need to rely on subjective opinions about what is beautiful. There is research we can use when designing school environments. Research that shows how spatial design, light, sound, materials, colour, access to nature and opportunities for movement influence students’ learning, cognition, memory and mental wellbeing.
At the same time, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare recently published a report on care and support for ADHD and autism. It shows that not even half of all children with suspected ADHD or autism receive the support they are entitled to before a diagnosis has been established. Although the need is often clear much earlier, many students must wait for support until a medical assessment has been completed.
The agency is clear: support should be determined by need, not by diagnosis.
So what if there is also a connection between how our learning environments are designed and how great the need for individual support interventions becomes? Many of the difficulties students experience in school—concentration problems, stress, cognitive overload or difficulties filtering out distractions—are influenced by factors such as acoustic conditions, lighting, spatial orientation, visual clutter and opportunities for recovery. When these basic conditions do not work well, more students risk struggling to engage with learning.
Such an approach would of course not replace diagnoses, pedagogical support or special educational interventions. But it could reduce unnecessary barriers in everyday school life and make learning environments more inclusive for a wider range of students. It could also contribute to greater equity, since support would then not depend on access to a diagnosis, resources in individual schools, or where in the country a student happens to live—but would instead be embedded in the environment itself.
Research shows, for example, that:
You can call it aesthetics if you like. But in the end, it is about how the school environment affects children’s opportunities to learn and thrive in school.