Do you have enough space?

I am currently working on my doctoral dissertation, which examines the use and rhythm of break-out spaces in school buildings. I became interested in understanding why we so easily allow the construction of classrooms that are too small. As background for this argument, I recommend becoming familiar with the first Finnish National Core Curriculum for comprehensive school from 1970. It clearly outlines the changes that were desired in schools at that time and the spatial requirements these changes entailed.

In the 1970s, it was recognized that learning in schools needed to shift toward a more learner-centered approach. A clear distinction was drawn between teacher-centeredness and student-centeredness.

"GROUP WORK AND INDIVIDUAL WORK ARE ESSENTIAL METHODS IN A MODERN SCHOOL," states the 1970 national Finnish Core Curriculum for comprehensive school, which set the explicit goal of transitioning from teacher-led methods and mindset to student-centered learning.

Even then, it was understood that the organization of school time could not be based solely on the efficiency of teaching; attention also needed to be given to ensuring that students actually wanted to learn. Structuring the rhythm of work and rest, considering students’ energy levels, and offering engaging tasks were seen as crucial sources of motivation. The aim was to eliminate the fragmentation in school timetables that disrupted comprehensive understanding, made concentration more difficult, and hindered connections between different subjects.

New learning methods — individualized study, group work, co-teaching, and guided independent learning — required flexibility not only in pedagogy but also in the physical structures. It became clear that 45-minute lessons and a schedule dictated strictly by the clock no longer served the needs of a modern school.

New Guidelines

In the early 1970s, SITRA’s school building research sought to provide a foundation and rationale for the new Finnish comprehensive school buildings, drawing on international research and the best examples of school design. It was at this stage that it became evident that individual and group work required more space than traditional teacher-centered instruction. This realization was shared by curriculum developers, learning environment researchers, and those drafting school building guidelines. According to studies at the time, a minimum requirement for space to support group work and independent study was set at 4 square meters per student.

As a means to improve the multifunctionality of learning spaces, Lappo (1974, 91) proposed increasing the size of classrooms. Similarly, Savela (1971, 35) observed that the standard-sized classroom, as defined by the cost-regulation system, was poorly suited for group work, and suggested that expanding classroom size to 72–80 square meters would better accommodate new teaching methods.

Context: At the time, Finland—along with much of the world—was affected by the oil crisis. The Ministry of the Interior issued strict energy-saving regulations. Violations could result in fines or even imprisonment, and it was announced that failure to comply would lead to enforced rationing. Unsurprisingly, energy efficiency was also a key consideration in school planning.

New teaching methods required approximately 30% more space. However, due to the poor economic situation, it was not possible to change the existing standard cost-regulation system that governed school construction. Perhaps, however, it could be applied more flexibly? According to the system, each teaching group was guaranteed its own classroom, but these rooms were too small. The image carousel below shows the various ways designers attempted to enlarge teaching spaces. One solution was to attach a smaller, 20 m² room to each standard 60 m² classroom. This adjoining room could be opened up for group work, thus providing sufficient space for collaborative and independent activities. Another idea was to repurpose some of the corridor space—which could account for up to 25% of a building’s floor area—for teaching us

In the 1974 publication "General Design of School Buildings," different strategies for providing sufficient space for learning and working were explored, even creatively utilizing corridors.

What happened next?

The Finnish government issued cost-regulation decisions for comprehensive school buildings that defined the eligibility criteria for state subsidies, including specifications for different types of spaces and their sizes. In the 1971 decision, teaching spaces were categorized for the first time according to different types of instruction: large group teaching, small group teaching, group and special education, and basic group teaching. The maximum subsidized size for a classroom was set at 60 square meters.

The cost-regulation guidelines aimed to ensure that each teaching group had its own space. However, in order to support group work adequately, an additional adjoining space was necessary. For some reason, either due to a lack of readiness at the beginning of the comprehensive school era or perhaps because teachers did not actively advocate for more space for group work, the need for larger classrooms was not widely acknowledged. Teachers adapted to the situation, teaching spaces did not change, and classrooms remained too small. The idea of systematically providing for flexible expansion was forgotten. Instead, smaller leftover spaces, "residual spaces," were created here and there, which during the 1980s and 1990s were often repurposed for special education.

The 60 m² classroom remained the standard even after state control ended. In recent years, even this allocation has been challenged: some new schools are being built without assigning each student group their own base space, and guidance has been issued allowing classrooms smaller than 60 m². This trend has led to considerable public criticism, as cramped spaces clearly harm both teacher and student well-being and hinder effective learning.

Terveet tilat 2028: Yleissivistävän koulutuksen (perusopetuksen ja lukion) oppimisympäristöjen nykytilaselvityksessä huomattiin, että oppijoiden käytössä oleva tila vaihtelee Suomessa paljon ja että harvoin päästään tavoiteltavaan 4 m2/ oppija.

Dear colleagues,

I am gathering information on how much basic equipped classroom space per learner is available in schools across Finland. According to the guidelines in Finland, a 60 m² classroom should accommodate approximately 15 learners, and a 50 m² classroom around 13 learners (assuming no additional break-out space is available for other activities).

At this point, I am not considering that around 20% of learners have one of approximately 60 different diagnoses, which would create additional special requirements for their learning environment.

I would greatly appreciate if you could share your calculations and any related questions with me at info@oppimaisema.com.It would be very interesting to see how the situation varies across different regions!

Thank you in advance for your contribution.

Best regards,Markku Lang; Oppimaisema