ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

The best one i saw was the greatest kindergarten in the world on TED in kyoto japan. Included children climbing, playing in water, hiding in boxes. Architecture was created with children in mind. Young children ....and they could be easily observed.

While all of these play areas are eye-catching and a work of art, I wonder what the underlying message is for our children and our future. Does everything have to be greater and grander and never done before? I wonder what would happen if all the money spent on these areas could have been spent improving our natural world and parks by natural hills and tunnels and natural landscape mazes? Why do we need to clutter our world with more? Why not take care of what we have? Wouldn't this be a greater lesson?

These play spaces are all aesthetically pleasing and provide lots of opportunity to gross motor, physical play. I expect they will also offer practice social negotiation about turn taking, as well. However, they all seem to be missing loose parts for children to use creatively in ways that require complex thinking skill and problem solving. What would happen if loose parts were added?

Although the playgrounds were very clean looking I prefer the natural outdoor playground like the Nature Explore classrooms.
Where are the sticks,rocks and other natural loose parts?

I like the architecture aspect of the differnt countries/cities. I do like the limited amount of toys. I do believe that here in USA we saturated our classroom with so much stuff, that is too distracting. The majority of the photos have rooms that allow the children to use imagination and play pretend, what is wrong with that? Less is more, so the less we put in the classroom, the more children will use their imagination to create and develop critical thinking. I have to do site visits and every time I get into one of our classrooms, I get a headache. Too many posters, kids stuff on the walls. Every corner has toys and abundance of toys that leave very little to the imagination. I know that my thoughts are not the norm, but it's my opinion. Less is more.

Yo trabajo en un centro en California, y la belleza de el centro donde trabajo radica en la variedad de arboles frutales que nos llenan de colores durante el ano, La estetica de las diferentes fotografias dice mucho de el punto de vista urbano , A decir verdad algunos escuelas estan llenas de espacios y eso es valuable,Otras tienen demasiado colores fuertes para mi gusto. C[aro que las maestras deseamos siempre ofrecer espacios en armonia y estetica y lo bueno es que podemos hacerlo con lo que tenemos al alcance de la mano, En mi caso es lo que nos ofrece la naturaleza, y eso no lo cambio por nada.

Notice that most of these photos are staged and do not show children playing and interacting with the environment. Some of these even show fancy decor and no toys or materials!

The school in Japan was actually built for kindergartners and is a pretty cool place that I wouldn't mind working. It was featured in a Ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/takaharu_tezuka_the_best_kindergarten_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

When I originally read this article and viewed the pictures I was looking at the spaces depicted, I did and do find the spaces to be beautiful; they seem bright with lots of natural light filtering in. I agree that you cannot tell how functional they are as many of them are not in use. I disagree that they are sterile just because they are not cluttered do not I believe that a "good" early childhood education space must be chock full of loose parts and things. Several pictures had children in them and they were smiling and seeming to enjoy themselves.

I have to agree with others who think there is just not enough toys and things for the children to play with. I thought the playground on the roof was interesting but wondered what they did up there. Was it just a track for walking? I mistook the steps to get on the roof as a great slide which might have been fun. Probably the most exciting thing I saw in this picture was an airplane on the ground beside it. That would be cool for the children to climb on and in.
The brightly colored school at the beginning made me think that the children must be running around all the time. I would be hyper in that building. Whatever happened to the natural, home like, park like, setting for which we are all striving?

I agree that they are beautiful architecturally but look like advertisements for furniture and the architects. They all appear "brand new & never been used". I prefer the natural look of the examples in the book Inspring Spaces for Young Children, which seem more inviting and apprpriate for children.

Beautiful marketing to Parents, but oh... too sterilized an environment for children. Children are messy and organic and these places show no real life. I want to get in there and create art, messy the walls, add some life to them, create some chaos where real life lives! They don't look like places real children, creative thinkers play, sorry, they look like museums of what adults think children want. Yes, they are indeed beautiful, but I would not send my children there based on these photos.

I agree with so many of the comments. Ceilings too high, functionality, too many bright colors, lack of materials, lack of cultural representation and diversity.... But I also saw natural light, art, and nature. While these photos show spaces lacking many things we as professionals know the children need to thrive, I saw things that many of the spaces in my own city also lack that children need to thrive. Natural lighting, art, and nature are beautiful concepts.

Where are the trees?

While perhaps architecturally beautiful to some, these spaces seem empty and not particularly child-friendly. All of us in education know that what makes an environment truly "beautiful" is the quality of the interactions between adults and children. These spaces don't show that and there are not sufficient loose materials inside or outside, or enough of a nature-oriented feel to them (with the exception of the circular outdoor Japanese classroom). I'd enroll my grandchild in a less appealing-looking inside environment with supportive, playful, problem-solving adults and a truly natural outdoor classroom any day over these sterile, expensive structures. These costly spaces did not say "wow, let's play and problem-solve with people and all these interesting loose materials!". We need to spend money on adults and spaces that give that feeling.

While the architecture is certainly beautiful, it was also quite sterile, lacking in sufficient nature-oriented spaces and very, very little by way of loose materials inside or outside. But in the end, the "beauty" of an environment is totally dependent on something that you can't see here - the quality of the adult-child interactions. I've been in very small, not ideal physical spaces that were thriving because of the adults. While the physical environment is important, I would enroll my grandchild in a less physically-appealing place with very supportive, playful, problem-solving adults before I would in a beautiful environment with adults who don't sit on the floor, fully engaged and present with children.

Two words: Architect Ego. I have had the opportunity to design and build serveral child development centers in San Diego, using several different architects. Each time I have to educate the architect about children's needs and bring their lofty ideas "down from the clouds!" I have to remind them that we need "function" over "form!" It breaks my heart to see
$1,000's of dollars spent on very high ceilings that dwarf the tallest man, bright colors and cutsey sculptures that are not functional for children. I remind them to KISS and build warm, "home-like" developmentally appropriate child-centered environments.

In two words: Architect Ego. I have had the opportunity to design and build several child development centers with several different acrhitects. Each time I have to educate them, bring them down from the clouds and tell them Function is more important than Form! It breaks my heart to see $1,000's of dollars spent on huge high ceilings that dwarf the tallest man, or cutsey overly brightly colored sculptures or fixtures that bring no value or use to the children. Remember the KISS principal and keep a developmentally appropriate "Home-like" space for children.

Far to sterile. Look like industrial buildings to me, not homes for a child's creativity to flourish. I liked the building that had the colored windows that reflected onto the floor, I could see the kids enjoying that. The oval building with the grassy center could be an awesome exploration garden for the kids. The reading nook with the teacher reading a book I could easily see kids taking toys in there and creating some awesome adventures with castles, dragons, dolls, dinosaurs, tea parties, and so on. Didn't like the "fight club" scene. I also wish they would have shown the classroom spaces. I understand that a place has to be appealing to the parent but it has to encourage so much more in a child.

While beautiful and spacious, they were few elements of coziness and intimacy and softness. I felt like I was looking at pictures of modern art museums without art and especially without children's artwork displayed. I would think the acoustics in some of those spaces with vaulted ceilings (to say the least) could not be great for conversations and language development. Not a lot of grass on the outdoor play areas. Hopefully the teachers at these showcases of early learning provide wonderful interactions, nurturing, and stimulating activities which is what counts anyways and can be done just as effectively in a renovated home or building with a natural outdoor learning environment.

Some looked kind of sterile... I wondered if there were other spaces they weren't showing where the children actually play. The Fuji and Montpelier centers looked like they were the most likely to invite play... I liked the way they blended the indoors and outdoors. They were also two (out of just a few) that actually showed any materials for children to engage with. I would like to think there is more to these environments that wasn't being shown (because the focus of the photos was on the unique architecture, perhaps?). One positive for all of them was that they all had a lot of natural light.

My first impression...sterile and void of nature. I was surprised that none of the schools in Reggio Emilia, Italy were not included.

Although they are colorful, I believe children feel and learn in environments with natural borders and natural play things.

My Administration of Early Childhood Programs class agrees that these facilities, although very modern and colorful, appear empty and not personalized. They aren't inviting to us as adults and we suspect young children wouldn't find most of them attractive either. We had concerns about safety issues in some photos, especially the two children who appear to be fighting in a ring.

Several words come to mind: stark, cold, sterile, eye-catching for adults, void of personality, warmth, or anything interesting in the way of toys or educational materials.

Very sterile environments. The builds and architecture would be amazing if there was evidence of children's work, creative spaces, cozy corners and so much more. The spaces are disappointing to me - what a great amount of space that has so much opportunity.

i actually love that whoever designed these places considered child care centers important enough to build beautiful places in which to learn. i think beauty does have a tremendous impact on children, as it feeds the soul, gives inspiration, and provides a calming environment. i think that as a whole, we don't value beauty enough for a learning environment, just as we don't place very much value on music and art as learning tools.

The buildings all seemed new, sleek and modern...and sterile. I liked the large windows, access to the outdoors, etc., but I saw few books & only 1 photo of someone reading to a child and nothing that looked home-like or cozy. If these centers represent the style of home the children come from, then I suppose it works for them. After all, it is more about human relationships, whether the class is indoors/outdoors, new/old, modern/traditional

The London center was beautiful! Love the outdoor space and the connection between inside and outdoors.

Cold, sterile, and where are the learning materials? This is what happens when architects design buildings without any knowledge of children's need to be cuddled, messy, and investigators in a natural environment. What will these children grow up to be like? Robots?

I wish I had that kind of money to design a modern out-of-the-box preschool. I imagine that children can adopt to almost anything and could learn and grow in almost any environment. I am sure no two teachers would use these spaces the same.

awesome pictures.lots of open space and colors made it very inviting schools.

The word that came to mind as I looked at these was "stark." I loved many of the artistic elements, though some were too bright for long days. What I didn't see was comfort or coziness. I didn't see dramatic play materials or children's art, blocks or natural elements. Was that a boxing ring outdoors in one photo?

An indication that buildings are being designed by architects and stylists without input from educators or anyone else who understands the developmental needs of children.

While I was browsing, all I kept thinking was...how sterile are these environments? I didn't see any work done by the children, Large open spaces for children to run. No cozy spaces for children to sit with a book or just rest. Not anyplace I would want to work.

This is a stimulating exercise. Considering environmental features for form and function is a complex concept. In the pictures presented, I saw form, or course, but I generally imagined children and teachers and what they might do with the space (function). Most of these spaces seemed empty and ready to be enriched. In a few of the settings, safety issues were apparent. It would be good to know how staff handle those steps and too high spaces. In some, cultural features were obvious. The big take away doing this activity was the juxtaposition of the cleanliness, the expansive spaces, and the beauty in the settings with the tiny closet-like spaces and over-crowded rooms I have seen in many early childhood programs.

Where, oh where is nature in these spaces? Where are the natural materials--or any child materials for that matter? Where is a warm, cuddly space to read? And where is art from the hands of children?
I wonder why so many obviously gifted people would leave the child out of child care?

Some of the materials are beautiful and thought-provoking. Other materials turn the children into decorations. It's hard to imagine children in some of the photos, and that colors one's response. Where the decorations are adult art, they pre-empt the chance of putting children's art in those places. And too many of these photos show nothing, Nothing! of nature. Worrisome. Children need trees, flowers, rocks, birds...not a frill!

It is hard to make a judgement based on one one or two photographs without experiencing the centres and the type of programmes they operate.There is a sense that the architects have created "works of art" but the feel is institutional. In New Zealand there is a trend towards the franchising of early childhood services. Sadly, in doing this the children miss out on environments which have a home like feel. Outdoor spaces begin to become artificial (artificial grass and concrete instead of real plants, grass and trees. Whatever happened to "home like" spaces for young children?

Some of the buildings are oversize and too restrictive, some toys are too high and the space is not inviting to children. Colors are too bright and over stimulating. One centre stand out for me Montepelier Kindergarten (Londres, Reino Unido)

I saw lots of open space for moving. I am often concerned with how we may be confining little ones into a building most of the day rather than giving them space to explore, both inside and out. Many facilities I visit are crowded with furniture, materials and children. Personally, I would love to see more space for my kids like I see in these photos. Just giving my first joyful impression and not commenting on things I did not see or things I may not know about these facilities.

These places seem clean and office-like to me. Children's work is not visible in any of these photos. Who loves here? No evidence!! Some have too many bright colors, making it over stimulating. I saw the circular play ground from Japan in action before and saw benefits to problem solving and opportunities for many types of play there. We only have a glimpse of most of these places so it is hard to make a judgment on these environments.
If I was a child would I feel at home in these places? I doubt it; not as a place to live in all day.

While most appear beautiful, I am curious as to the total center. Some looked like a supervision nightmare to me.

In most of these spaces the children are merely decorative elements in an architect's grand vision. All the design fun has been done by an adult. The children have little or no say or input. I would rather see small, scruffy places with lots of room for child created spaces. These were not places that met the needs of children for warmth, small spaces, moveable elements, or intimacy. In a word...Yuck.

You know, I don't care for bright primary colors in ECE settings, in spite of the trend that way in European ECE design right now. That said, I didn't see anything objectionable in these images. They looked cold and empty because mostly there were no children in the images. These looked like architect's or designer's photos. I didn't see anything wildly overwhelming or dreadful in these images, and I could imagine them being used well with young children.

I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE ALL BEAUTIFUL, STATE OF THE ART. I LOVE ART AND I WISH WE HAD MORE STRUCTURES LIKE THEM IN OUR STATE. THESE BUILDINGS PUT A SMILE ON MY FACE AS I LOOKED AT THEM. IMAGINE HAVING BUILDINGS AND CLASSROOMS LIKE THAT AND SEE HOW HAPPY THE CHILDREN ARE. BEAUTIFUL!

Amazing buildings with clean lines and color! Many of the centers were similar in that they had very little clutter. I would have liked to have seen more pictures of them in use. That way I'd know how the children are interacting in their environment. Thanks for sharing.

One thing noticed about most of the sites was the use of natural light and large open spaces that could be used for a vairiety of experiences.
They did seem rather sterile, but then we see the "company" view, not what it may look like when lived in by children.

Beautiful but sterile spaces.Colors are nice but children do better with restful colors. The dimensions of softness, e.g. plants, grass; complexity, clear child choices were not evident.

The majority are way to over stimulating. Too much emphasis on bright colors. Too cavernous and sterile. The only one that I was not put off by was Montepelier Kindergarten (Londres, Reino Unido). They seem to emphasize natural colors, but still looked to sterile and cavernous. Not seeing environments that are conducive to child-focused activities and creativity. Nor any warm, cozy, comforting places.

Young children need spaces that are in sync with nature and the outdoors. Young children enjoy places that will remind them of their homes. Great architecture work but not designed with young children's needs in mind!

Thought I did. But something like this: Look fabulous. But what do kids in poor communities get? Yet kids are resilient and can make do with simplest of resources.
Iver Haugen

Look fabulous! What's possible in poor communities? All kids deserve the best. They are also resilient and can make do with the simplest.
Iver Haugen

I would not have wanted to be a child in any of those settings; cold, too colorful, and also stark at the same time. Our poor world.

I really liked the one in Salzburgo, Austria. The rest seemed very clinical and not warm and inviting. So I would say only one was truly appropriate for children.

I thought the spaces were definitely beautiful, some more than others. I especially liked the spaces with lots of windows.

I remember how beautiful our brand new center was when we first opened in November 2012. I remember thinking how much more beautiful it will be once we have had children using the space. The children are the life of the center. Their interests, their inquiries, their wonderings brought even more beauty to our spaces.

As I watched life evolve in our center brought on by having children using the space, I now see our center as even more beautiful. The original structure which was beautiful to begin still exists, but now we have the addition of what the children have brought to the space, life.

I truly believe where the teachers are sensitive to the children's needs and truly value childhood, any space, regardless of its beginning or backbone is made beautiful once the children arrive and use the space.

It's the people who use the space that bring it to life. Any space that is left in it's sterile, original state will quickly die, no matter how beautiful it is. The space can only survive if it is growing.

Interesting and lovely architecture, but a little bit on the hard side using Betty Jones' dimensions of learning environments. Maybe because I'm 67 now, the idea of cushiness and coziness are a little more appealing to me (and, I think, young children, as well).

My first impression is that they are very sterile. High ceilings and large open spaces inside are usually noisy and invite running. Bright colors can be overstimulating. I saw no children's work displayed The program in London was the most appealing to me. It has trees and grass, lots of natural light, materials arranged so that they are easily accessible by the children and defined spaces.

I would be very hesitant to make comments on these spaces for several reasons. 1) The whole picture is not presented; it is not clear to me for what purpose many of these spaces were created or used. It seems unlikely we are viewing the whole facility. 2) We are missing the cultural and social context of the spaces/place. While for me they may be X, that is from my perspective, my cultural viewpoint, my experience. I do not know these places, cultures or contexts to be able to determine how well these "fit" for children, families, staff and programs for whom they were designed. 3) It is not clear to me how "urban" these spaces are in terms of having access to open land/play spaces.

The title of the article suggests that these environments are not developmentally appropriate. In fact, many of the photos do not show the classrooms, but rather show common areas, so it is actually hard to determine whether they meet US expectations of developmentally appropriate practice. In the few photos that are shown, many of the settings appear to be vastly different than our expectations of developmentally appropriate, but perhaps American perceptions of what is appropriate don't fit for the culture of the countries in which the photos were taken. While I certainly believe in American developmentally appropriate practice here in the US, I don't believe we know everything there is to know about children and environments for them, especially in the context of their various cultures.

Yes, it is true, there are few soft spaces for children in those strikingly beautiful environments, the spaces appear to be undefined with interest areas, and there are few examples of children's work, BUT, have you wondered why? My point is there is plenty to learn from those photographs. For example, I can only surmise that the choice to not install carpeting is for health purposes. And, thank goodness the classrooms are not dominate by those hideous alphabet rugs that seem to be everywhere in America classrooms.

From my perspective, the title of this article is judgmental with a hint of American elitism. What makes us so sure we have all of the answers about what is and what is not appropriate internationally? The title might be better if it was "What can American early educators learn from these International examples?" After all, here in America, we often have to adapt and modify our environments for children because we often do not have the luxury of investments in buildings specifically for early education. We have to make do in most circumstances. While I agree the program spaces in the photographs might benefit from some of our expectations for soft spaces, learning center definition, and displays as well as integration of natural materials, But before I say that definitively, I first want to know why the designers of those spaces made the choices they made, especially in the context of their cultures and expectations. After all, it's clear that there was considerable thought invested in the designs of those spaces. We should ask questions so we can learn before we judge.

I think the architects used natural light in interesting ways. And there the appropriateness ends for me. Every building looks institutional, hard, sharp. Only one center was in touch with nature in the outdoor area. We may as well tuck children in a box all day. No wait, a box would be more fun.

While appealing to the eye for adults and for most children, I found there to be a lack of work displayed that was done by the children. I feel that this is key to the development of self-concept, and self-esteem.

I liked the creative ways of bringing natural light into the learning environment, and the classrooms were open and spacious and uncluttered. Somehow, though, many of them felt very sterile and cold and not inviting. The high ceilings would make the environment fairly noisy, I would think, which would be uncomfortable for both adults and children.

It is impressive that the resources, ideas, creativity and will were all in the same place, at the same time to build these spaces for children. Although they may not meet my cultural preferences, I think they are quite amazing.

Interesting...are colors the only thing that adults feel children need to be exposed to. Are these extreme colors the kind of environment you would embrace in your home?
While a rich, inviting environment is important for children, the true quality of care are the teachers children are in relationship with. They are the true resource children and parents value. They exist in the poorest of centers and places for children. Let's not forget our most precious asset.

I love the modern feel of these buildings. They seem a little empty, but many other cultures are not as fixated with "stuff" as we are. What do children need more of stuff or space?

I would have liked to see the inside of the classrooms. The outside of the building and large muscle spaces are great, but it would be nice to see the classrooms also.

Where's the dirt, paint, clay? Perhaps it is hidden away to be brought out once the enrollment documents are signed and money is collected.

Well these pictures are certainly wonderful! But yes, one wonders what it would be like to actually work in these spaces, and if one could run a program that was developmentally appropriate in them. But it seems to me that we are limited in our ability to judge by the choice of photographs of any one site. For instance, consider the Fuji Kindergarten in Japan. One gets a very limited sense of the space and how it might be used compared to the video going around of the same school (saw it on FB I think). In the video one can see the children running on the roof, and climbing the trees that come up onto the roof, as well as children working quietly in the classrooms underneath. The video provided a lot more information for evaluation.

Basically I thought the pictures served as a warning that we should be wary of letting architects go off and design day care centers on their own. I suspect they find their inner child, and they often come up with wonderful uses of color and shape, but then real teachers have to work with the results. It makes more sense to involve the teachers from the beginning, and of course, to remind the architect that teachers are creative people too, and will want to adapt space and equipment to meet their own goals and ideals.

The most beautiful preschools I have ever seen in person (or in pictures) were in Reggio Emilia – no question about that.

Wow! I think most of these are examples of architects that have not spent enough time with children to understand who they are or what they really need. I'm even more certain that most of these architects have not consulted landscape architects with any knowledge of children's needs. These designers would learn a lot from the Nature Action Collaborative working group. Seems that outdoor learning spaces are seen as unimportant in most of these images, likely because we keep our children in cages (opps ... I meant classrooms) most of the time. Bright colours on walls and furniture , over-stimulating rainbows painted on walls, sterile interiors, a overwhelming emphasis on indoor environments does not speak of quality to me.

There were some really nice features in most photos, like exterior banks of windows that retract to make for a seamless transition form outdoors to indoors, skylights, windows that come down low enough for children to easily see out, an open grassy field, etc.

Some of the buildings had lovely plays with natural light, which would change throughout the day - Centro Infantil Municipal El Chaparral - the movement of the light coming through the panels; Kindergarten Kekec - movement of light through the louver windows; and generally the amount of natural light in many of the settings is appealing.

Perhaps architecturally, these centers are appealing to the adult eye. I found the colors of the first one to be overstimulating for children and for me. There appears to be quite a lot of "space" in all of them but "empty" of developmentally appropriate learning materials/experiences. The design of these spaces seemed totally "adult-centered" and lacked consideration of children's developmental needs. "Stark" is what comes to mind. I would not have chosen any of these places for my own child.

Well these pictures are certainly wonderful! But yes, one wonders what it would be like to actually work in these spaces, and if one could run a program that was developmentally appropriate in them. But it seems to me that we are limited in our ability to judge by the choice of photographs of any one site. For instance, consider the Fuji Kindergarten in Japan. One gets a very limited sense of the space and how it might be used compared to the video going around of the same school (saw it on FB I think). In the video one can see the children running on the roof, and climbing the trees that come up onto the roof, as well as children working quietly in the classrooms underneath. The video provided a lot more information for evaluation.

Basically I thought the pictures served as a warning that we should be wary of letting architects go off and design day care centers on their own. I suspect they find their inner child, and they often come up with wonderful uses of color and shape, but then real teachers have to work with the results. It makes more sense to involve the teachers from the beginning, and of course, to remind the architect that teachers are creative people too, and will want to adapt space and equipment to meet their own goals and ideals.

The most beautiful preschools I have ever seen in person (or in pictures) were in Reggio Emilia – no question about that.

These look like an architect's conception of what a preschool should look like--in other words, someone with no early childhood experience designed these spaces. I noticed very little softness, toys, or playground equipment. Maybe the early childhood philosophy differs in other countries? The only center I would even consider sending my own child to was the one in the United Kingdom. The others, although aesthetically pleasing, kind of scared me!

I have just been talking about beautiful places for children in my Expressive Arts class here at the college and plan to use this as a discussion point for them. Striking, Gorgeous, For Adults, were the thoughts I had as I looked at the places. Towards the end I did start seeing some places I thought, Oh I like that...such as the trike path with the different looking surfaces pictured in one photo. While I applaud the work that considers aesthetics in designing kid spaces, some of these look like they were designed by people who haven't worked with children or those that have a different philosophy on how children learn best. I'm looking forward to hearing the students reactions to these places.

Where's the water and the mud? Where's the children's work?
It reminds me of the joke we always had in grad school: when visiting schools, and the one where everything was so pristine and the toys so lovely...and the employees told us the children were not allowed to play with them as this was a model school and the children's toys were hidden away, hardly ever taken out, as the school always had to be ready for tours. (it was an employee school attached to a world-renowned children's corporation!!! There are ideas in these schools I would love to incorporate, but all-in-all, they look very sterile and some too stimulating to actually get any REAL WORK of childhood done.

Wow! While my own ideal facility is the outdoors with a square cube building open to the elements that teachers can arrange and rearrange to best fit the children's and curricular needs, I have two other observations, 1) its very signification that none of these are from the US, which I believe illustrates our lack of commitment to the early years, and 2) when I was looking at these photos my mind kept going back to all the church basements my Head Start program used in the 1980s!

These are interesting spaces to look at. They feel large, sometimes open or empty. My initial thoughts were similar to the other posters. What about personalizing the spaces? Where are the cozy nooks and quiet corners? Why does it feel more like a museum or a hospital than a children's space?

But then I also wondered what role culture plays in designing the spaces. Many of the most minimalist spaces felt like an Ikea catalog and were from, not surprisingly, Europe. How do cultural norms affect how we, or any other country, think about what is 'best' for children and how we design our spaces?

I am sorry but I feel these facilities rob children off their natural needs for Earthly connections and the right to have comfortable places to meet and rest. Yes, they are pretty to look at but I believe these vast stimulating facilities were created more for the adult pleasures than the children's needs. Although I would soon tire of working in one because boredom would set in.
ECE, Canada

I believe the original post is very leading almost directly asking the reader to find inappropriate spaces. The spaces are beautiful and mostly appropriate. There is a minimalist feel, but to say that a child would not enjoy the beauty in large spaces, colors, and quality toy design is to seriously underestimate children. Are these spaces different from the typical US preschool design, yes they are, are they inferior to typical US preschool design, no they are not.

That said, the one major issue I did see was what appeared to be a road right in front of a children's play area with no type of fencing between the play area and the road.

Why are you encouraging readers to pass judgement on the different ways that other cultures view educational spaces. Scholars in different parts of the world have different opinions about what is appropriate or effective or even beautiful, obviously. Why on earth would we think that we have a 'right' answer that these obviously well intentioned and well planned preschools do not? Also, I have seen videos of several of the Japanese spaces with children running around free in them, and as one reader said, the space looks a lot different while it's being used than it does empty.

Children deserve beauty and aesthetics, but while stunning, many of these environments appear so sterile, clinical and pristine. There was a lot of plastic! Could young children let loose and play freely? Very few had natural elements which is the epitomy of beauty and so important to children's holistic development.

Obviously designed by an architect, not early childhood teachers and children. Beautiful and eye catching for sure - but there is so little softness, comfort, home-likeness and certainly no natural and found materials and real connection to nature - The kind of connection that children can explore with all their senses. I would have a headache working in most of those buildings. But they were beautiful.

I think children deserve beauty and aesthetics, but so many of these environments are sterile, plastic and pristine. Can the children really just let loose and play in them? Few had natural elements, which In my opinion is the epitomy of beauty.

I think these buildings are amazing. Yes, there were things missing, such as softness and artwork, and materials seemed limited, but these are easily added. Children deserve to play and learn in beautiful settings. Is it possible that these pictures were taken when the facilities were new? That would explain why they seem somewhat sterile and unused.

Beautifully functional and functionally beautiful.

The extravagant buildings may be unnecessary, but I am impressed at the respect given to whole body experience and the access to the outdoors provided in almost every one of these settings. We have become used to minimal space requirements and shared urban playgrounds as the norm, at least here in Boston, so I admire the commitment to ample space, large motor play of all kinds and natural light as a right! Would love to see more interiors/sleep, eating spaces, etc. Very surprised that not one Italian center was featured, given the unusual attention to environments and children's rights on display at least in the Reggio Emilia region.

While I thought the classrooms were beautiful, I did not find the rooms to be an appropriate learning environment. I saw no materials for the children to use freely or independently and when I did the were only in one area. As we look at beautiful classrooms and spaces , I think it is very important to always keep the children's needs and interests first. I did not think that was evident in any of these spaces.

Architecturally the buildings are very unique and creative designs to attract adults and may be some children. The program philosophy and the educational guidelines of these centers must be very different. I did not find these as children friendly and also the settings are not age appropriate. If any child / children had any kind of special needs, the programs may not meet those needs. The inside settings are too empty for young learners to explore the environment.

Architecturally these are stunning. To me they are also sterile places that would not inspire or encourage creativity for children or teachers. They are certainly beautiful, but not the sort of space I would want for 'my" children.

POSITIVES: Most are so airy and wide open
Age appropriate toys, especially nice to see in a kindergarten which looks more like a preschool here in the US
I loved all the windows but hope that some have a shade option

NEGATIVES: Some have too much use of color, potentially causing distractions
Furniture is not sized correctly; note the girl on her knees in front of the dramatic play center
I did not see much in the way of children's art hanging anywhere
Sometimes all that open space is overwhelming for children, particularly the sweeping high ceilings

The buildings look nice, but I did not see any children's art work on display.

The environments are visually pleasing to me as an adult and there are lots of elements that would be for children as well. I don't see much softness but that can be added depending on the culture and philosophy of the program. Some of the color combinations are bold so depending on how the space was used it may or may not be appropriate for all ages and activities. I loved the light and shadow and how it combines with color and furnishings in many of the environments as well as levels and architectural features that I think everyone finds interesting, including children.

Definitely esthetically pleasing, but I am not sure they actually had children's growth and development needs in mind. In most pictures there were very few play materials of any kind and no softness to make the spaces more inviting and child friendly. The kindergarten in London was the most child-friendly, they had some play areas which looked like children would actually use them. I loved the outdoor place space for its use of natural things. We see this too often; adults design with other adults in mind rather than what is actually good or appropriate for young children.

Some very nice spaces, but a little too much. I do love the rainbow windows that leave a rainbow on the floor when the sun shines through.

We all wish for more space in child care, something with lots of room for movement, but some of these spaces have too much room.

It is hard to tell in some of the pictures that just show the space with no children--yes, they are spacious and beautiful, but until you are there and see what actually happens it is hard to tell if it is quality or just beauty. However, we all know that children do deserve a beautiful place to work and play--and space to stretch out. I love the space that has the water spigots for outside play and the others that show riding toys inside. And look at all the large motor activity going on--unlike so many places where we worry about children "getting hurt" and then do not let children explore with their bodies. Oh, I wish I had lots of money to build what I envision........

I am very intruiged by today's articl . . I have read the book about beautiful spaces. At the time I was experimenting with loose parts it did inspire me to also use adult furniture in our play rooms. I wish o had the book still so I could explore it from this point. Please continue this dialogue I am very invested .

Beautiful school architecture in our modern world - almost like our modern designed homes?
Unfortunately todays modern spaces are so sterile that they often do not encourage exploration, investigation or true relaxation either at home or in school. Like those fab kitchens were no cooking takes place!!
However, I would like to visit some of theses beautiful schools today and look at the learning that is actually taking place - it may be more interesting than we think! I have checked out one of the schools in Japan on YouTube and was quite impressed.