(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
[18. May 2007] "We shape our buildings, then the buildings shape us." The words were Winston Churchills, in his time a call to rebuild the Parliament building after the old drawings, when it was destroyed by a bomb attack in May 1941. He believed the building did something with those who used it. Still, buildings are helping to shape its users.
As early as 1991, the State Building Technology Agency determined that poor indoor environment in Norwegian buildings leads to an annual loss of somewhere between NOK 15 and XNUMX billion, in the form of reduced productivity, sick leave and subsequent medical treatment. Eleven years after the introduction of what is called the "Children's Working Environment Act", regulations for environmental health protection, the Children's Ombudsman fears that as many as half of Norwegian schools and kindergartens run without approval. As both the school owner and the approval authority, the municipalities can break the law on a daily basis without consequences. Directly hazardous buildings are uncovered in city by city. But when the government presented its revised state budget on Tuesday, May XNUMX, there was not a word on school buildings.
The country's schoolchildren, teachers and parents know the problem on the body every day. The schools are struggling with health-threatening indoor climate, asbestos in the walls and mildew in the air. School was the big topic during the last election campaign, the parties are vying for who is most for more knowledge in school. But the content of the Knowledge Promotion cannot be realized in the school buildings we have. Studies show that people are happy with the content of the school, the teachers and the teaching. This is not where the greatest potential is. At least not as long as the buildings are built to house old-fashioned pedagogy, with one teacher, one class and one classroom.
The latest governments have made so-called interest-free loans available for restoration, but the loans are scarce. The municipalities either cannot afford to take out the loans, or the limits are not large enough. The party that in practice manages to come up with the best plan to realize really good school buildings can win the election.
The parties can go on a study trip to Trondheim. There, cross-political ambiguity has provided clear financial priorities and comprehensive planning. There, citizens know when their school is in charge. The school that has to wait the longest can get easy means of painting and flaking, and the opportunity to buy furniture that will be entering the new school eventually.
The politicians will shape the content of the school. Everyone cares about the school. But the building also shapes our children.
