Arch, Itzhak Lir

Chairman of the Israel Association of United Architects

Mr, Shneur Simcha

Deputy Director of development of the Ministry of Education and Culture.

Arch. Jaacov Hertz

Chairman of the Organizing Committee

Prof. Zeev Druckman Arch.

Dean of Faculty of Architecture, Bezalel School of Art.

Arch. David Guggenheim

Arch. Yael Kinski

Mrs. Betty Politi

M.A. Educational Planning

Arch. Gideon Powzner

Arch. Gavriela Nussbaum

The seminar was made possible due to the generous contributions of the Ministry of Education and the Israel Association of United architects.

We would like to express our gratitude to Arch, Uri Zerubavel the present chairman of the association and to Mr. Simcha Shneur Deputy.director of the Ministry of Education.

Editorial board

Arch. Jaacov Hertz

Arch.Gavriela Nussbaum

Mrs, Amit Michalevich


List of U.LA Delegates and Participants from abroad

- Australia

Ross Meakin

- Austria

Prof. Anton Schweighofer

- Argentina

Jeffrey Berk

- Botswana

David Young

- Brazil

Joao Honorio de Mello Filho

Rita Vaz

- Chile

Jadille Baza

- Czech Republic

Peter Krejci

- France

Rodolfo Almeida

- Germany

Prof. Frid Buhler

- Greece


- India

Prof.Sumant Wandrekar

- Israel

Prof. Zeev Druckman

Jaacov Hertz

Betty Politi


- Poland


Prof Janusz Wlodarczyk

- Portugal
Jose M Freire Da Silva

Maria Conceicao Braz de Oliveira

Jorge Farelo Pinto

- Romania

Petre Swoboda

- Slovakia

Jan Dolejsi

- Sweden

01Ie Wahlstrom

- The Netherlands

Dick Mooij

Ernst Pieters

Kees van der Zwet

- Uruguay

Nurali Duhalde

- United Kingdom

William R. Ainsworth

- U.S.A.

John Castellana

Jeff Floyd

- Venezuela

Lourdes Melendez

Eduardo Millan



Sunday - May 21 Afternoon Arrival of participants from abroad.

18.00 Registration of participants from abroad

Monday - May 22

8.30 - 11.00 Morning tour of Jerusalem and vicinity for participants from abroad.

11.00 - 1130 Registration of participants from Israel

11.30 12.30 Morning Session

Chair: Arch Jaacov Hertz

Opening of the Seminar

Addresses by:

- Arch Jaacov HertzIsrael

- Arch William AinsworthUnited Kingdom

    UlA working group ''educational and Cultural Spaces

- Arch Moshe ZarhyIsrael

Representative of the U I A presidency

- Mr. Shneur Simcha Israel

- Deputy Director for Development of the Ministry of Education and Culture.

12.30-14.00 Lunch

14.00-18.00 Afternoon Session

Chair: Arch William Ainsworth

14.00 - 16.00 Presentation of Key Lectures

- Prof. David Chen, Israel, University of Tel-Aviv, School of Education

- Dr. Yair Shoran, Israel University of Tel-Aviv, Interdisciplinary Center for Technological Analysis and Forecasting

16.00 - 16.15 Coffee Break

16.15 - 18.00 Presentation of Key-Lectures

- Arch. David Reznik - Israel

- Arch. Rodolfo Almeida - France

- Prof. Frid Buhler — Germany

20.00 - 22.00 Reception by Jerusalem Branch of Israel Association of United Architects.


Tuesday- May 23

8.00 - 9.00

Visit to the High School in the Holocaust- Memorial Compound Jerusalem, for participants from abroad

9.30 - 13.00 Morning Session

Chair: Arch. Dick Mooij

9.30 - 11.00 Presentation of Key-Lectures by:

- Arch. John Castellano - U.S.A.

- Arch. Gavriela Nussbaum - Israel

- Prof. Zeev Druckman - Israel

11.00 -11.15 Coffee Break

1.15 - 13.00 Presentation of Papers by:

- Arch. Jeff Floyd - U.S.A

- Prof Janusz Wlodarczyk - Poland

    - Arch. David Nofar - Israel

- Arch. Rodolfo Almeida - France + Arch. Jadille Baza -Chile

- Arch. 011e Wahlstrom - Sweden

- Arch. Peter Krejci - Czech Republic

13.00 - 1430 Lunch

1430 - 18.00 Afternoon Session

Chair: Arch John Castellano

14.30 -16.00 Presentation of Papers by:

- Arch. Curiel Avrahom - Israel

- Arch. Joao Honorio De Mello Filho- Brazil

- Arch. Nurali Duhalde - Uruguay

- Arch. Jose Freire Da Silva - Portugal

- Arch. Jorge Fordo Pinto - Portugal

- Arch. Lourdes Melendez & Eduardo Milian - Venezuela

- Arch. Yael Kinski - Israel


16.00 - 16.15 Coffee Break

16.15 - 17.15 Presentation of Papers by:

- Arch. Dick Mooij - The Netherlands

- Arch. Jeffrey Berk - Argentina

- Prof. Sumant Wandrekar - India

- Prof. Feni Vavili - Tsinika - Greece

17.15 - 18.00 Discussion of presented papers

20.30 "Meet the Israeli"

Members of the working group will be invited to homes of Jerusalem citizens

Wednesday - May 24

07.00 - 19.00

Visit to High Schools in the Central and the Northern part of Israel.

7.30 - Bus leaving Neva Ilan for Raanana passing through Modiin New Town

9.30 - Regional High School Bnei Dror

12.00 - Lunch at Beit-Gavriel on the lake of Galilee

14.00 - Regional College Carmiel

19.00 - Reception in the "Architects House " Jaffo by Israel Association of-United Architects.


Thursday - May 25

9.00 – 11.00 - Workshops

11.00- 11.15 - Coffee Break

11.15 - 13.00 - Workshops

13.00 - 14.30 - Lunch

14-30 - 16.00 - Workshops

16.00 - 16 15 - Coffee Break

16.15 - Reports from different workshops

20.00 - - Farewell party at the home of Maja and Jaacov Hertz for members of the UIA working group

Friday - May 26

9.00 - 11.00 Closing Session

Discussion and summing up.


Arch. Jaacov Hertz

The Israeli Association of United Architects feels privileged and honored to host the U.1,A. International Seminar of the Working Group on Educational and Cultural Spaces. Seven years ago the Seminar was also held in Jerusalem and the subject of that meeting was the Elementary School,

It was, therefore, quite logical to choose this time the High School as a subject. We had not imagined, that the subject we had chosen would be such a difficult one.

It is perhaps a coincidence, that at the start of this millennium we are facing rapid changes in the structure of society.

The tremendous developments of Science and Technology have shifted and caused the participation of different age groups in the vital decision-making process. One doesn't have anymore to be aged and gray-haired in order to fill top positions,

We must be aware of the fact, that high school, college and university deliver in a straight line the people who build our society.

For this reason the tools and the aims of our educational institutions must change. We have to create a democratic learning society, where students and teachers are equal partners.

The insight and vision of the younger generation have to inspire the teaching community and vice versa.

In a changing society we architects have to be prepared to build High Schools that can facilitate different ways of learning and, above all, create an inspiring environment for students and teachers and the community at large.

Therefore we were very careful in planning the program of this seminar.

The Key Lectures will present us both with a picture of possible future developments in Education (Prof. David Chen) and in Science and Technology (Dr. Yair Sharan), and will give us a State-of-the-art view on High School Building in Europe (Prof. Frid Buhler), in the U.S.A. (Arch. John Castellana), in the developing countries (Arch. Rodolfo Almeida) and in Israel (Arch. Gaby Nussbaum).

In addition, the lectures of the U.I.A. delegates and of the Israeli participants, and the visits to different High Schools will hopefully form a solid base for fruitful discussions, which may lead to important conclusions.

This is the way we planned the Jerusalem Seminar in order to achieve five days of talking, listening, observing and absorbing and, finally, going home with new ideas. The venue and the timing of the conference "Jerusalem 2000" are both symbolic for a new spiritual start.

1 want to thank all those, who helped me to organize this Seminar, especially the members of the organizing committee.

It is my pleasure on behalf of the national organizing committee to welcome you in

Jerusalem with the traditional greeting “Bruchim Habaim”: “Blessed are you in coming".

I wish you fruitful deliberations and a very pleasant stay in Israel.

Jaacov Hertz

Chairman of the Organizing Committee


Arch. Moshe Zarhy

Past UIA Vice President - Region ll

Director of the MA Science and High-Tech Facilities WP

Dear Colleagues

On behalf of the UIA, I have the honour and the pleasure to welcome you to Israel and to the International Seminar of the UIA Working Group "Educational and Cultural Spaces" devoted to the theme of "The High School Beyond the Year 2000”.

First of all let me congratulate Yaacov Hertz for organizing this Seminar, and for his work and contribution to the UIA's as a member of the "Educational and Cultural Spaces" Work Group, for a long time.

The UIA Work Groups are considered to be the backbone of the UIA ,perhaps even its "raison d'etre". Most of the important work of the UIA is made in the Work Groups, and the UIA Working Group Educational and Cultural Spaces has been for many years among the best Work Groups. The Group's professionalism in the discussion of relevant issues have made the Educational and Cultural Spaces Work Group what it is today.

I am sure that the discussions and deliberations in this seminar will be creative, stimulating and fruitful. Seminars, such as this one, are an integral part of what gives architects the tools to deal with diverse planning situations by comparing and sharing experiences and diffusing knowledge.

May I suggest that amongst the important issues discussed in this seminar you also dwell on the Report of the General Policy WP of the UIA, approved and adopted during the General Assembly in China in 1999.

At the start of the second 50 years of the UIA, after extensive research within its member Nations and careful analysis, the Beijing Charter identifies three themes which form a sound foundation upon which the UIA can inform and develop the many activities already in progress, and embark on new projects targeted at projecting the essential architects can bring to bear in creating or reshaping a building environment.

I would like to dwell shortly on each of there themes and their relevancy to the planning of Educational Facilities and to this seminar.

HUMANITY: - Our goal as architects is to create an environment for people to enjoy in their employment, habitat reservation and ,of course, education. "Architects care about people". As such, when planning the educational environment one should take into consideration the practical needs of both the teachers and the students and the local values of the community it serves, while, at the same time, providing the right atmosphere for stimulating the learning processes.

QUALITY: - Architects provide quality as part of their role. Good design plays an essential part in achieving real quality, including the true economy and sustainability, In the design ,globalization tendencies need to be balanced by the quality of local regional values. However, when we speak about educational facilities, more often than not the available resources arc limited. The "client", who is usually the government, may not be able to provide the resources needed to design and execute a sound, long-term answer, acknowledging costs in use and maintenance. Thus, the architect has to provide Quality at an affordable cost, where often the only determining factor is the lowest price.

ABILITY: - Architects are trained to offer it. On the matter of Ability, the architectural profession can emphasize the action taken in raising the proved level of skill and experience offered by architects through accredited training, registration and continuing development schemes. Architects have proved that they have the ability to operate in diverse situations, acting as problem solvers and enablers

The three key words of the General Policy - Humanity, Quality and Ability are the three UIA themes for the Twenty First Century, The Report of the General Policy Work Programme of the UIA is at your disposal here. Ifs relevance to the theme of this Seminar "The High School Beyond the Year 2000" is self evident, and I hope it will be expressed in the conclusions of this Seminar.

Once again, thanks to the organizers, supporters and sponsors who have made this event possible. I wish you all fruitful deliberations and a pleasant time.

-10 & 11-

Mr Simcha Shneur

Deputy Director General and Head of the Development Division of the Israeli Ministry of Education

On behalf of the Minister of Education Mr. Yossi Sarid and the Director General Mrs. Shlomit Amichai, I hereby welcome all the attendees of this important conference in Jerusalem, where we today are opening in the event at the city's Van Lir Institute.

You will of course remember from the Bible that Jerusalem is holy to three religions. The city was planned and established in the greatest architecture project the world has ever known, and in that we were referring to the construction of the great Temple.

During the construction of the great Temple architects., designers, and engineers joined forces under the watchful eye of King Solomon.

Therefore there is no better place than Jerusalem to hold this conference, and to host all of the attendees of modern architectural conference.

Anyone entering the city is astounded by it's beauty immediately and filled with creativity and a drive for architectural splendor and accomplishment.

Before we get to the main subject of this conference "High school in the third milleniurn" I would like to review briefly a number of statistics concerning Israeli Education.

    1 The Israeli education system in 1999/2000 numbers nearly 1,900,000 pupils divided into four categories ;

- Pre-elementary school

- Elementary school

- High school Higher education - Universities and Colleges

    2 Absorption of immigrants

The Israeli education system has since 1989 absorbed some 600,000 pupils from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. Our education system is unique in its absorption of immigrants, as it combines s setting for learning absorption in a total social and cultural environment, which has no parallel anywhere in the world,

All this was done with the belief that a successful absorption in the educational system will make it easier for the integration of the immigrant into Israeli society, arid will enable the successful absorption of all the nation's family of immigrants.

    3 The budget of the Development Authority if the Ministry of Education in the year 2000 is 1,2 Billion shekels (about 300 rnillion dollars).

Within this tremendous budgetary framework it is planned the building of 1880 new classrooms in the system.

The new construction of the educational structure will provide an answer to the natural increase in the population, immigrant absorption, internal migration and development of new neighborhood and cities in the country,

The High School of the year 2001.

The biggest and most striking achievement of the educational system in Israel in recent years was expressed by the significant rise in the percentage of those studying in high schools and the high rate of those eligible for matriculation certificates.

The rise in the percentage of those studying in high schools brought with it the attaining of a balance in the numerical rise and the qualitative component This means that the gains achieved in obtaining the maximum years studying has necessitated the widest number of various educational framework which are suitable to the needs and abilities of the various pupils, All this has to go hand in hand with the correct use of the schools which are absorbing them,

It is our opinion that in the educational system of the high school at the beginning of the 21st century, it is worthwhile to focus on the following points :

1. Improving the quality of education and study.

The renewed evaluation of the educational system, in order to content successfully with the various needs of the pupils. This is done while we implement an extensive development of the unique and very special programs and areas we are responsible for.

2 Improving the learning dimensions

The improvement in the pupils' accomplishments at the various levels of education while developing the skills needs for research and self examination, independent study and monitored use of distance learning.

3. The centralization of resources while preserving educational continuity

- continuity during the transition stage from elementary school to junior high school and from junior high school to high school.

- The principle of individual promotion of the pupil in the various levels of education.

- The promotion of school autonomy and the encouragement of the diversity in the entire high school system.

- The increase in the free choice which allows pupils to study their chosen subjects as well as methods of study.

4, The overall concept of the high school

Representing the continuity from seventh grade till the twelve grade and enables the solutions in the course of time.

5. "ESHKOLOTH" and inter-disciplinary topics whose purpose is to encourage high schools to organize their studies in separate study groups as well as enable the contacts between the various subjects and the choosing of interactive subjects. In addition, personal resources are nurtured in the various fields.

During this conference we shall surely hear many interesting opinion and professional viewpoints concerning the future of High Schools in the third millenium,

In conclusion I would like to thank the organizers of the architects conference Arch Jaacov Hertz and Arch Izhak Lir, as well as all the organizing team of this important event here in Jerusalem.

I wish you a productive, fruitful and interesting conference.

-12 13 14-

Designing the School of the Future: Lessons from Experimental Work

Prof. David Chen

School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel


The architectural design of a school is an expression of the current philosophies and view of what the goals and functions of schooling are all about. Contemporary schooling is the product of the industrial revolution. The need for mass education, as well as some of the conceptual foundations of schooling were conceived at the end of the nineteenth century. Therefore, the mechanical metaphor is so pervasive in practically every aspect of twentieth century schools. Even today, the dawn of the twenty-first century, we still employ mechanical notions that make the school look like the industrial production line. The concept of "standards", the child brain of the industrial revolution has emerged as a central idea driving educational policy, While we can standardize raw material and physical products, there is no way we can standardize people. Diversity and variability, rather than standardized similarity are at the basis of human existential being. The notions of input, output and effectivity so widely used among educators, are also stemming from the machine-age percepts. The overall contemporary school design reflects very clearly the mechanical metaphor.

The basic unit of the school building (as well as its pedagogy) is the standard classroom (49m2 in Israel). Therefore each school can have 6, 12, IS, 24, and 30 classrooms following the number of grades and the size of age cohort- Learning is done in groups of 40 students (ia practice the average number is about 30). A lesson" is a standard time unit of one hour, A school day consists of about 6 lessons. A school week consists of 6 days (in Israel). The school year has 180 days (where are the missing 184 days of the year?).

The long corridors of the school buildings where classrooms are linearly laid out in line - from grade to grade VI and more, also represent the production function assumption that linear relationship prevails between input (time, curriculum) and output (achievements, learning).

It is very hard to accept the fact that Newtonian mechanics that provided the theoretical underlying principles for the machine, still drive much of the educational enterprise practices. However, it is also the time to rethink both our theoretical assumptions and educational practices.

It is the objective of this paper to show how changes in our basic assumptions regarding education by and large, and the design of schools specifically, can affect the conceptualization of schooling and school architecture.

The school of the future is an experiment that aspires to define new theoretical Foundations for education and derive experimental practices regarding school design and practices.

The experiment started in 1991 and continues to this very day. Design and planning took place between 1991 and 1993. The construction of the school building took place during 1994, and the school was opened in 1995, followed by research, development and evaluation until 2000.

We Will begin by offering a brief description of the theoretical framework underlying the school design. We started by redefining education:

"Education is about the relationship between ontogenetic knowledge (the knowledge constructed In the Individual throughout the development cycle and growth) and the phylogenetic knowledge (that is public knowledge represented by the curriculum)."

The magnitude of public knowledge relative to the individual knowledge is for all practical reasons infinite, thus at the very essence of learning, lies the need to make choices. Putting students and the student population at the center. of the educational enterprise and processes entails deriving educational design out of a humanistic metaphor that takes into account what science has told us about human nature, rather than the mechanistic metaphor based on man-machine analogy.

The working hypothesis regarding the school of the future is that information technologies (computer, television, communications) enforces radical changes in the relationships between individual knowledge an public knowledge.

These changes are mainly:

  • The change from linear to complex representation of knowledge;

  • The change from static to dynamic representation of knowledge;

  • The change from insulated to connected (networked) structure of knowledge;

  • The change from symbolic modes of knowledge representation;

  • The change in meaning of space and place, and

  • The change in the organization of time patterns.

These changes have far reaching implications on the entire spectrum of the design of learning systems: the goals, the curriculum, the pedagogics, organization and management and the architecture of the school,

This is, of course, a very brief summary of the theoretical framework underlying the overall design of what we called - The School of the Future model.

We will now try to focus on the implications that each and every aspect of the expected changes have had on the design of the school, focusing on the architectural aspects of the new pedagogics predicted, There are two principles to remember in regard to the specific design:

  1. It was the theoretical framework that led and yielded the architectural design,

  2. The mandate we received from the Ministry of Education was to maintain the overall dimensions of the school within the existing constraints of space and budget.

The results therefore represent somewhat of a compromise between the ideal and reality. So. here is the way the theoretical considerations were transformed into design principles. The notion that human knowledge is a complex, non-linear entity is based on the information theory of Claude Shannon. Thus, learning does not have to be linear, sequential and hierarchical,

Perhaps the so-called "hypermedia' principle of organizing the computational learning environment is a good example of the consequences that the non-linearity principle allows. So how should we design the physical learning environment in response to this principle? Certainly, there is no simple answer to that, nor are there empirical analogies, yet several guiding principles emerge:

There is no need for the classical classroom. This was replaced with the concept of "home". The home is both a social and a physical concept. The home unit is a defined space in which a group of 80 student and 3 teachers can organize flexible and interchangeable learning situations.

Three models were proposed:

  • The computer garden - an area in which individualized learning can take place.

  • The general assembly space, in which either the entire social group could meet, or groups could provide the learning unit.

  • The small auditorium is a flexible space that can be either separated from the general assembly for large learning groups, or project teams to work, or integrated with the rest of the space to increase its holding capacity.

Access to knowledge is provided through distributed network around the entire school. Thus the design principles are very clear: the learning environment allows for flexible organization according to the needs of the users.

The learning environment is not hierarchical, and not linear in accordance with the mode of knowledge structure and distribution, knowledge can be accessed practically in any cbnfiguration of the learning environment

The second principle employed in the new design is the principle of dynamics of knowledge. Public knowledge is perceived as growing, emerging, increasing, constructed and even decaying. The dynamic theory of knowledge, as conceived by De Solla Prise and Robert Kuhn, as well as the introduction of knowledge technologies, requires the reconceptualization of the learning environments.

The concept of the library as a discrete entity where students may have access to books is replaced by the concept of resource center. The resource center is an extended version of the contemporary library. In addition to the physical representations of knowledge such as books, records and artifacts, the resource center maintains the school data-bank - symbolic, acoustic and visual in a digital format that can be accessed anywhere at school or at the student's home. The extensive network is an indispensable element of the overall infrastructure of the school. New communication technologies are already available that will eliminate the need for the extensive wiring that is currently used for the network.

The dynamics of knowledge can empower the young individual learner to become an "independent learner." The new pedagogy based on Piaget's notion of the active learner, is reinforced in a dynamic environment where the student can carry out an independent study, an inquiry, or project-based learning and construct hisiher own knowledge independently, This sort of approach to teaching and learning requires certain design elements that allow for some privacy, storage of products and continuity in time. Most of these requirements can be accommodated by interior design.

The third principle of multimedia representation of knowledge calls mainly for the extended use visual language for learning, Traditional schools were, and still do, focus heavily on symbolic representation (alpha numeric) which is the basis for all modern science. However, the visual language might provide a very powerful tool for concrete thinkers, and anyway, culture-wise, through television and video, have become a central piece of the information age.

Right now the computer screen provides the main visual learning environment, and the merging of the TV on PC technologies improves significantly, the efficiency of this environment, yet additional provisions have to be made to extend visualization. This was done by providing VCR's and TV large screens in the homes, and creating screening facilities within a large auditorium, The layout of the learning environments must provide visibility of screens to small and large groups.

The fourth principle has to do with the change into connectedness. The notion that knowledge is neither discrete nor isolated is realized mainly in the creation of the information highway, the cyberspace or as it were - the internet. We do not take the radical stand that the internet and the resulting distance learning make the school void. Rather, we see the internet as an extension of the school as a learning environment. Thus the real school should be considered as the hub for the so-called virtual school and emanating from the school community's overall function.

The specialized learning areas such as, the science and technology laboratory is now the base from which tele-sensoring provides data from remote areas on the globe, the space, or from micro-worlds beyond what the senses can reach. The language barrier can be overcome and can bring cultures as well as people closer through teleconferencing.

The last two changes - that is the implications of the technology to the utilization of time and space - overarch and emanate from the former changes. The following are some changes regarding the utilization of space. Schooling can be extended beyond the physical and geographical boundaries. The major changes in this respect are the relationship between the school and the student residence, Organized learning can be extended through the distance learning mechanism, both synchronically and a-synchronically, thus enabling to increase significantly the "time or task' of the students, and utilization of learning resources, Teachers can extend their professional development far beyond the school building and the standard schooling hours, thus becoming a real learning organization and increasing the effectivity of the school.

Parents can get connected as well, thus getting involved in the teaching and learning processes of their children, as well as maintaining contact with the teachers regarding the progress of their children,

The school can bring in virtual expertise that doesn't exist at school and so enrich both the learning resources for all as well as for special-needs children,

it is important to understand that the underlying principle implied by the networking and connectedness is that it is the school that is extended rather than


One of the most significant changes has to do with time for learning, Quantitatively formal school utilizes 180 days a year, at about the rate of 30 hours. a week, or 5 hours per day. The resources of time can be extended significantly with an increase in school effectiveness.

Qualitatively, the distribution of time within the school day can now be handled individually according to the individual's needs.

The management of time by the school principal, the teachers and the students will change entirely from standardized time units to flexible and adaptive schedules that conform with the needs of the individual,

The experimental school has now completed five years since its opening. The evaluation research, now being summarized, indicates that the new paradigm and the school's new learning environment significantly increases the achievements of the students across the entire curriculum as compared with the standard achievements set by

the international evaluation association. It is also clear that teachers perform
significantly better, thus the attitudes of children, parents and teachers are significantly high as compared with other experimental schools.

We would like to conclude by suggesting that our research indicates that the success story of the new schooling design is the result of the overall system changes that took place, rather the isolated discrete changes in isolated variables such as the curriculum, teacher's professional development or changes in the design of the learning environment The major lesson for the architectural design that we have learnt is that the planning and design of the school building should follow its pedagogical paradigm rather than enforcing it.

-15 16 17 18 19-

Technology Revolutions and the Future School

Dr. Yair Sharan

The Interdisciplinary Center for Technological Analysis and Forecasting

The technological developments and changes which we are witnessing in recent years have significant impact on our daily life and certainly on education and future school.

We are at present in the middle of the information revolution which has penetrated almost every sector and every organization. Telecommunications and computers are now everywhere and one can't imagine life without them. Education is an absolute imperative in this emerging knowledge society. However, adoption of the technologies seems to be slow especially regarding infrastructure.

Two further revolutions are expected to follow. The first which is a direct outcome of the information age is the emerging "free-time" society. The second is nano-technology. The first will be reflected in a drastic decrease of our weekly working hours and the rise of leisure time of every one of us. Much of this new available time will be devoted to learning - a must in our changing world. Learning will be imperative in all ages and schools will be an essential infrastructure to fulfil this need.

Nano-technology will enable technologists to "play" with atoms and molecules as with "Lego" bricks. New materials will be created arid new generations of very small systems - "Iiliputs" ­will be created. A powerful personal computer - small, cheap, user friendly, and flexible - will be available for every pupil like the book of today.

We assume that the Future school will keep some of its traditional functions: social interaction, discipline. guidance and teaching. and yes - "babysitting".

School will, however, be open all day long to serve wide spectrum of educational needs and great variety of pupils and students of all ages. School infrastructure will thus enable fulfilment of this need.

School building will be fully networked • equipped with a central computer to which every pupil will be able to connect, as well as to the Internet and other networks. Every teacher will have its own room/position connected, with his personal computer to the network. Audio-vision aids (E-blackboard, multimedia systems etc.) will help him in his teaching/guiding tasks. Personal E•learning as well as collective learning will parallely play a role according to the teacher's will. Another possibility is a convenient “electronic book", equipped with high resolution screen, that can be loaded with any textbook or educational multimedia material.

The technological developments will have a significant impact on school architecture. School building will be "green" and "intelligent" using advanced technologies to be environmentally friendly and optimize expenses for maintainess and operation.

Probable model for school building will be a "Spider Model" which will create central parts used by all pupils in school and other parts serving special targeted groups all connected with a communication net to enable real-time interaction between all schools.

-20 21-

Arch. David Reznik.


While the U.I.A. conference was held this past May in Jerusalem, my friend Arch. Jacob Hertz approached me and asked me to give a presentation about our plan for the new town of Beit Shemesh. He wanted me to talk about Beit Shemesh as an example of urban planning and public life and I agreed because it gave me the opportunity to talk about the development of the State of Israel.

The development of Beit Shemesh started really with the idea of Prof. RaitIllifi Weitz. Prof. Weitz was a great Zionist who was responsible throughout our 50 years of independence for the establishment of over 500 agricultural villages. In 1991, as president Gorbachev started with the process of Perestroika and Glasnost. Prof. Weitz predicted that we would probably need to provide housing solutions for a new wave of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union. As we all know he was right and the idea to develop the small development town of Beit Shemesh into a main urban city between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem came natural.

Following that, we prepared a small brochure that was presented to the government. Our proposal to enlarge the city of Belt Shemesh from 15,000 inhabitants to approximately 120,000 inhabitants happened to coincide with a government decision to plan the new city of Modi'in for a population of 250,000 inhabitants north of Beit Shemesh. After our proposal was approved, our firm together with the firm of Landscaper architect Shlomo Aronson were appointed for the task of preparing a master plan for the new City of Beit Shemesh.

Beit Shemesh is located 25 km from Jerusalem . It has a mild Mediterranean climate. It sits on the Judean hills, 400 m above sea level with a rich History and Archeology. Taking into consideration these two natural assets, we decided to create a Green Town that is composed of neighborhoods of 2500 families with their own centers of public services. We also decided to use the beautiful valley that separates geographically the northern part of the city from the southern parts, as the main entrance of Belt Shemesh. In the valley we concentrated the Civil, Educational and main cultural center of the city in order to gather all the neighborhoods around one core. By this decision we developed an earlier scheme of ours which we implemented in the Hassidic community of Hatzor. There too, we gathered the community around its educational and spiritual center rather then the commercial,

As a result of our plan, the ministry of housing declared a competition for the design of the town center. The Plans of architect Kertez and Groag has been selected. and these are currently under development.

We hope that our planning approach will allow the people of Belt Shemesh to enjoy a beautiful green urban space that will provide the inhabitants with a civilized, cultural. healthy and humane environment.