Citation
Foundations in Education: Introducing Youth to the Built Environment

Material Information

Title:
Foundations in Education: Introducing Youth to the Built Environment
Creator:
VAUTROT, KERRY A.
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Architectural education ( jstor )
Cultural preservation ( jstor )
Heritage education ( jstor )
Historic preservation ( jstor )
History instruction ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Museums ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
City of Tampa ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Kerry A. Vautrot. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2016
Resource Identifier:
659561090 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

FOUNDATIONS IN EDUCATION: INTRODUCING YOUTH TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT By KERRY A. VAUTROT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006 1

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Kerry A. Vautrot 2

PAGE 3

To my preservation family for insp iring, supporting and challenging me. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have b een possible without a number of extremely dedicated heritage educators who provided their suppor t and expertise throughout the proc ess. I would like to thank Leonisa Ardizzone, Robin Robson Gonzalez, Gin ny Graves, Kate Ottavino and Pat Shuford for all of their enthusiastic assistance. Many th anks also go out to Bekki Coppola at Strawbery Banke Museum for all of her prof essional help and reassuring me that this finally would all come together. Of course, I would also like to thank my Committee—Roy Graham, Peter Prugh and Carol Shull—for all of their constructive comments a nd always making time in their busy schedules to help. This document certainly would not be what it is today without them . Special thanks are also in order for my honorary fourth and fifth committee member s, Kaitlin O’Shea, proof-reader extraordinaire, and Emily Bergeron for lending her experience and advice at all hours. Greatest appreciation goes out to my mother for her unwavering support, brilliant ideas and constant faith in me. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .....8 ABSTRACT ......10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........11 Definitions .........12 Challenges .........13 Nationally Mandated Education Standards ..........13 Effects of Legislation on Classrooms .......15 Where Does Heritage Education Fit? .......16 2 HERITAGE EDUCATION IN THE CLASSROOM .......17 Teaching with Historic Places .......18 Heritage Education – Louisiana ........20 Save Our History .......22 Brooklyn High School for the Arts .......24 The Salvadori Center .... Center for Understanding the Built Environment. ....30 Heritage Education Publications.......31 Architecture Everywhere Investig ating the Built Environment of Your Community Architecture in Education a Resource of Imaginative Ideas and Tested Activities ....32 Architecture is Elementary Visual Thi nking through Architect ural Concepts .....34 Box City ....35 Walk around the Block .........36 3 FREE CHOICE LEARNING........37 Colonial Williamsburg in Heritage Education..37 Kids Zone .....38 Becoming Americans Study Visit ....39 Teachers Institute ..... Junior Interpreter Program ... Electronic Fieldtrips .....41 Strawbery Banke Museum .... 5

PAGE 6

School Programs ...... Summer & Winter Break Camps .........44 Winn, Jackson and Sherburne Houses .....5 4 MATRIX EVALUATION ....47 Data ...47 Further Analysis 5 CASE STUDIES .......51 Brooklyn High School for the Arts .......51 Salvadori Center .... Tampa Preservation Incorporated.......... Funding .....58 Save Our History .......58 National Endowment for the Arts .59 Institute of Museum and Library Sciences....60 National Endowment for the Humanities ..60 Teaching American History ..61 National Park Service ........61 Conclusion . 6 NEWLY DEVELOPED HERITAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS....63 Adventures in ACKitecture! .63 Building Detectives ..65 Building Detectives as an Ongoing Unit...66 7 HERITAGE ED UCATION PROGRAMS BY STATE .......68 Alabama Arkansas ....... Colorado ... Indiana ......71 Montana .... Pennsylvania .....73 South Dakota ....74 Washington .......75 Wisconsin .....76 Wyoming ......77 Conclusion ...78 8 DETERMINING SUCCESS ........ 9 RESPONSE TO A HERITAGE AT RISK ....... 6

PAGE 7

10 FUTURE RESEARCH .........94 11 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS .................97 APPENDIX A MATRIX .....100 B ADVENTURES IN ACKITECTURE! ...........................................................................108 C BUILDING DETECTIVES ........ D CHILDRENS’ LITERAT URE RESOURCE LIST..... REFERENCES CITED ...138 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..148 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A+DEN Architecture and Design Network AHPP Arkansas Historic Preservation Program BHSA Brooklyn High School for the Arts CUBE Center for Understa nding the Built Environment CW Colonial Williamsburg ESL English as a Second Language FIT Fashion Instititute of Technology HSR Historic Structures Report IMLS Institute of Museum and Library Sciences JI Junior Interpreter LES Lower East Side NEA National Endowment for the Arts NEH National Endowment for the Humanities NCPE National Council for Preservation Education NJIT/CABSR New Jersey Institute of T echnology/Center for Architecture and Building Science Research NYC New York City PHMC Pennsylvania Histor ical and Museum Commission PTA Parent Teacher Association SBM Strawbery Banke Museum SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SOH Save Our History 8

PAGE 9

SOSP Salvadori On-Site Program TPI Tampa Preservation, Incorporated TWHP Teaching with Historic Preservation WMF World Monuments Fund 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies FOUNDATIONS IN EDUCATION: INTRODUCING YOUTH TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT By Kerry A. Vautrot December 2006 Chair: Roy Graham Cochair: Peter Prugh Major Department: Architecture Foundations In Education looks at how heritage edu cation can expand the learning environment to empower students with a sense of place. It studies heritage education’s definition, who the players in the field are and how best to implement programming. The thesis looks at three different venues for preservation education: in the classroom, as outreach for preservation-related nonprofit organi zations and in museums. Through a review of current heritage educat ion programs and case studies, the document delves into the program components that are mo st successful, and then studies how to best implement the programming. Foundations in Education also discusses challenges built environment education programs face in mode rn society, such as national and state accountability standards. The importance of deve loping effective evaluation procedures as key to “selling” heritage educati on programming to schools and potential donors is also stressed. The document culminates with two newly develo ped heritage education tools: an activity book and a curriculum for a week-long pres ervation focused summer camp. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When one can come to know and understand one’s place, with all it’s history, variety and complexity, and how that place may have shaped one’s life and experiences, one might come to know and appreciate the importance of these cr eations to all people.—Salvatore Natoli, 1992 The built environment is the largest tangible li nk between the present and the past. It can tell much about social history, technological cha nges, immigration patterns and aesthetic taste. Heritage education takes advantage of the lessons material culture and the built environment offer. In a real world context, students learn from their everyday surroundings simply by virtue of its all encompassing nature, heritage e ducation opportunities exist everywhere: while shopping downtown, walking the do g or conversing with grandma. Through a guided approach, adults and children can be taught to appreciate these windows into the past and develop a greater understanding of their surroundings. Through heritage education it is hoped that students will begin to recognize the significance of historic environments and strive to protect those areas (Hunter: 1993, 7). Heritage education as a concept has many defini tions and is used to refer in a generalized way to integrating historic preser vation aspects into lesson plans or activities. One component in heritage education is built environment education. Built environment education programs are conducted by a variety of professional organi zations: non-profits, school systems and museums drive the movement. Foundations in Education sets out to prove that the e ducational process can foster the appreciation and understanding of historic resources through the study of the built environment. Through a variety of research methods and observa tion it can be concluded that it is possible for education to alter opinions and contribute to an in creased understanding of the built environment. 11

PAGE 12

Definitions It is essential to define key terms as they will be used throughout this document. Historic Preservation-the pr otection and maintenance of significant buildings, sites, monuments, districts, material culture and cultural intangibl es in order to extend their existence for future generations. To put it simply, as W. Brown Morton III says “preserving the present for the future (Morton, “Documentation Lecture:” 2004)”. Heritage Educationthis concept has many definitions and is used to refer in a generalized or broad way to integrating historic preserva tion aspects into programming aimed to garner a better unders tanding of the topics. For the purposes of this document “heritage education” will specifica lly mean the above foretasted. Built Environment- “the urban environment consisting of buildings, roads, fixtures, parks, and all other improvements that form the physical character of a city (City of Austin, 2001).” Built Environment Education- “the study of architecture, preservation, design, city planning, and the issues and chal lenges which are a part of these activities (Graves: 1997, i).” Core Subjectsthe traditional elements in a school curriculum: soci al studies, geography, language arts, mathematics, science and fine arts. Free Choice Learning: “the lear ning people do when they get to control what to learn, when to learn, where to learn and with wh om to learn (Falk & Dierking: 2002, 6).” Sense of Place: a component to personal identity; the emotions associated with a certain environment composed by the physical place itself and how the individual has interacted within it. For many, heritage education and built environmen t education are one-in-the-same, but heritage education is an umbrella concept which includes the built environment. Heritage education can be substituted for built environment education, but not vice versa. This document looks at heritage edu cation lessons found in books, classrooms and museums. Heritage Education programs ar e developed and run by a wide variety of organizations. Many non-profits and state and g overnmental agencies are creating programs to 12

PAGE 13

help individuals, primarily those under 18, gain a better understanding of the built environment and their role in protecting it. Challenges Heritage education is generally accepted as a good concept, by preservationists and educators alike, yet it often faces challenges. On e of the tallest hurtles that heritage educators must conquer is the initia tion of national and state standards of learning coupled with high-stakes testing in public schools. Perhaps partially due to increased pr essure on teachers, educators are skeptical of different material a nd often not able to introduce a ne w topic into the curriculum if it will not be specifically tested by th e state. Additionally it is ofte n a challenge to ask teachers to introduce a subject outside of their area of expe rtise. Not many teachers have a background in architecture or preservation, and with an already high workload may have neither the time nor desire to learn more. If educators in traditiona l classrooms jump onboard this idea, it requires a substantial amount of funding for materials and fieldrips or speak ers. Unfortunately another issue which must be addressed is liability. Many programs involve fieldtrips or walks to explore the area surrounding the school, but require extensive permission slips. These challenges however, are not insurmountable. To persevere, a heritage educator n eeds drive, patience and creativity. Nationally Mandated Education Standards Formalized National Education Standards ha ve altered what many school systems teach in their classrooms, or at least how they teach it (Pedulla, Abrams, Madaus, Russell, Ramos, and Miao, 2003). On March 31, 1994 President Bill Clinton signed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act into law (Paris, 2004). This piece of legislation set forth eight goals for schools to accomplish by 2000, but perhaps the most important part of Goals 2000 is the creation of the 13

PAGE 14

National Education Standards and Improvement C ouncil. The Council’s purpose was to evaluate state educational systems and to develop National Standards which could be voluntarily incorporated into statewide cu rricula (Paris, 2004). Additiona lly, the Act created a National Skills Standards Board which sought to deve lop professional standards for vocational certification in an effort to make more students work-ready af ter graduation (Paris, 2004). President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 nearly a year after taking office. This Act addressed one of Bush’s platform promises: holding educational systems accountable for student performance (Bus h, 2000). The legislati on mandates that every state “set standards for grade-level achievement and develop a system to measure the progress of all students in meeting those sta ndards (U.S. Department of Educa tion: 2004, 18).” States had to determine which schools make “ad equate yearly progress” in or der to determine appropriate funding levels and analyze which schools requ ire more assistance (U.S Department of Education: 2004, 22). Standardized testing results are published, a nd should a school fail to meet adequate yearly progress twice in a row, the sc hool must provide trans portation and tutoring for students who wish to attend anothe r school (Merrow, 2003). The National Education St andards exist in fine arts, ma thematics, technology, language arts, social sciences and physic al education and health (Educa tion World, 2006). Many states have implemented even more focused statewide standards in fine arts, mathematics, technology, language arts, social studies, civics, government and foreign language (Education World, 2006). Within each umbrella standard are other learning standards or profic iency levels that must be met (Education World, 2006). 14

PAGE 15

Effects of Legislation on Classrooms Undoubtedly, increased emphasis on standardiz ed testing performance has changed the focus of the classroom, and has in many ways made it more difficult to incorporate non-core subjects into curricula. Bill Guld e, a history teacher at an Indian apolis highschool, feels that “in this day and age of accountability many teachers ar e putting aside creative projects, fearing that students will not do well on state-mandated tests (Gulde: 2000, 22).” Teachers do not have the time to present topics that they may find interesting or important, unless they are either directly on the test or they can skillfully integrate the topi cs to include aspects of the testable subject. Lloyd Bond, of The Carnegie Foundation for the A dvancement of Teaching, notes that “[t]he public pressure on students, teachers, principals , and school superintende nts to raise scores on high-stakes tests is tremendous, and the temptation to tailor and restrict inst ruction to only that which will be tested is almost irresistible (Bond, 2006).” Post accountability legislati on, class time has been spent l earning how to take the tests, and by covering topics likely to be assessed on test day. Fortunate ly, within the five years that have passed since the Act was signe d, educators appear to have become more comfortable with integrating test topics into dynamic lesson plans. Lauren Resnick, professor at the University of Pittsburgh, feels: We should make exercises so compelling, and so powerful as exemplars of a domain, that honing one’s ability to solve them represents generalizable learning and achievement. Viewed in this light, teaching to the test is no longer vaguely disr eputable because the skills and knowledge are themselv es general and are the very things we wish students to acquire (Bond, 2006). In this situation, a “compelling” and “power ful” lesson could include built environment education. 15

PAGE 16

Where Does Heritage Education Fit? If introduced at all, learning about one’s comm unity and its history is usually exclusive to social studies. However, the built environment, or heritage education in general is truly multidisciplinary and can be used to provide dynamic le ssons that aid students understanding of core subject matter. In order to incorporate heritage education into the public school classroom with “an already crowded curriculum” and state mandated testing, it ha s only one method of ingress: integration into the existing curricula (G ulde: 2000, 22). A walk through the neighborhood surrounding a school can be used not only to discuss ar chitectural styles, but their basis in history, geography, science, mathematics and ev en physical education; the more subjects a heritage educator can link to a lesson, the grea ter the chance of inclusion (Gonzalez, Note to Author, 2006). Despite the perception that history is boring, Americans do “have a tradition of revering and memorializing that histor y (Boland: 2000, 6-7).” Built environment education provides roots by acting as a tangible link to “how those who came before us lived and died, worked and played, expressed their beliefs, and governed th emselves (Boland: 2000, 6-7).” This look into the past serves not only as a history lesson, but as an opportuni ty for real world learning. Students often lament over mathematics and questi on why they are required to learn a subject they do not feel will be useful to them in the future, but if shown the app lications to real world situations they may understand that math can be used to calculate square footage, the number of bricks needed to construct a house, or just how high a roof is. Heritage education offers just that opportunity: practical applications. Whether used to introduce a subject, as an intermediate exercise or to drive the point home, heritage e ducation can have a place in the classroom. 16

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 HERITAGE EDUCATION IN THE CLASSROOM In our ever-changing, fast-moving world, the permanence of our architectural roots inspires us to discover our sense of place. In the challenging and insecure time of middle and high school, a sense of place may be one of the most important needs for students to fulfill. -Joseph Weber, 2000 For many, historic preservation is viewed as a frill, an unnecessary expenditure of funds and a block to progress (Risk: 1994, 37-40). This attitude spills into the educational system where historic sites are good for the one annua l fieldtrip, but not wo rthy of any classroom discussion. Heritage education is the response to those ideas. It is because of programs like Teaching with Historic Places and the Salvadori Center, to name only two of the many, which are dedicating their time to create a welcomi ng academic community for historic resources. Individuals and groups ha ve published books filled with lesson plan ideas and activities that allow teachers to integrate built environmen t related lessons without fully altering the curriculum. There are many types of heritage edu cation programs, designed for traditional classrooms, as after-school programs, summe r camps and workshops. The following section focuses primarily on programs that take place within the typical school day. Heritage Education does not often allow school systems to sta nd alone, but instead encourages community organizations to partner with schools and bri ng the education full-circ le to include actual practice. Many schools and organiza tions that include heritage e ducation into th eir curricula do so for multiple reasons, but the overarching theme is to foster an appreciation for the built environment while simultaneously filling students with a greater sense of identity and pride of place (Boland: 2000, 6-7). 17

PAGE 18

Like all fields, technology has played an important role in shaping how heritage education is presented, approached and experien ced. No longer do students have to be at a historic site to understand it, th at site is brought to the classroo m via television and the internet. Computer software that has re volutionized the architectural industry is now becoming more commonplace in technology classes throughout high schools. As technology moves forward, it is dragging the past into the future with it. Heritage education programs are helping to secure a place for preservation in the future. In order to advocate or truly appreciate any su bject one must understand it; all of the programs discussed in this chapter are doi ng their part to broade n the knowledge base. Heritage education is a win-win for preservationists because not only are these programs helping to assure that their efforts will not be destroyed by the next generati on, but they are able to share their passion and gain a more educated workforce. Teaching with Historic Places The 1980s brought a new era in education afte r a review determined that many students were falling behind in fundamental subjects, consequently bringi ng about the “back to basics” movement (Stedman, 1996). Simultaneously with the evaluation, the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places and the National Trust fo r Historic Preservation were researching opportunities for increased outreach programs (National Register, “About TwHP,” 2006). After consulting with many edu cators, the collaborative result, Teaching with Historic Places (TwHP) was released in 1991 (National Register, “About TwHP,” 2006). The premise behind TwHP was, and still is, to show how eff ective using place can be to create “excitement and curiosity about the people who lived [in these places] and the ev ents that occurred there” in order to “enliven traditional cl assroom instruction (N ational Register, “About TwHP,” 2006).” 18

PAGE 19

Utilizing historic places in curricula not only enhances the classroom learning experience, but aids in making a connection between the tangible present and the past while at the same time learning “to appreciate the valu e of the nations cultural resour ces (National Register, “About TwHP,” 2006).” Students become detectives and gather clues through analyzing maps, photographs and other primary sources before placi ng their theories in context at a National Register site or district. Through visiting local historic sites, students gain a better understanding of not only their local history but how th eir immediate environment was affected by national events, technological advances and societal changes (N ational Register, “About TwHP,” 2006). Making personal connections with history through or al history interviews, genealogy, and making physical contact with structures are all benefits which can be derived from any preservation oriented lesson. TwHP has received accolades from the Ameri can Association of State and Local History, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Park Foundation (National Register, “About TwHP,” 2006). The programs are also touted in Social Education , the National Council for the Social Studies’ journal, in Magazine of History, the Organization of American Historians’ publication, and are included in the US Depart ment of Education’s Educational Resources Information Center (National Register, “About T wHP,” 2006). Currently there are more than one hundredtwenty lesson plans sp ecific to certain National Regi ster sites that have been developed by teachers and preserva tionists, but TwHP also encourag es educators to develop their own TwHP lessons (National Register, “Less on Plan Index,” 2006). Educators looking for guidance on how to write these lessons find a temp late that will meet many state’s criteria and will be familiar to teachers (N ational Register, “A Guide,” 2006). Each of the lesson plans 19

PAGE 20

was created to meet the National Standards for History and Social Studies and is geared toward grades five through twelve (Na tional Register, “Lesson Plan I ndex,” 2006) . TwHP has been introduced at National Council for the Social St udies conferences as an additional way to familiarize teachers with the program (National Register , “About TwHP,” 2006). The response to TwHP has been overwhelmingly positive. One teacher from Alafia Elementary School said “Thank you so much fo r this [the TwHP] website. I have been struggling all summer trying to find a way I c ould make U.S. History come alive formy students. I believe your web site has done this (National Regist er, “TwHP Feedback,” 2006).” A representative from the Minnesota Historical Society’s Education Department commented that the Teaching with Historic Places Curriculum Framework “is a wonderful resource for helping teachers learn methods to help students maxi mize their learning experiences using historic sites.[k]nowing how to access and create lessons using historic places will definitely enhance their interest in embedding the use of historic places in the curriculum (National Register, “TwHP Feedback,” 2006).” Heritage Education—Louisiana “Teach, experience, remember (Richmond, “Welcome Letter,” 2002).” Heritage Education—Louisiana’s tag line says it all. Begun in 2000 as the National Park Service’s Heritage Education Initiative’s pilot program , Heritage Education—Louisiana “brings the American experience [to life] for our children, creating an appreciation and understanding of the peoples, places and traditions that have shaped our nation through innovative methods of teaching and learning (Richmond, “Mission,” 2002).” The curricula were all developed by sixteen fourth and eighth grade Louisiana teachers (Richmond, “History,” 2002). With help from the State Historic Pr eservation Office, the 20

PAGE 21

National Park Service’s National Center for Preservation Tec hnology and Training, the preservation perspective in these progra ms was tantamount. The lessons are truly interdisciplinary and take the national educa tion standards and state testing seriously by integrating core subjects into “activities th at use local cultural resources as the foundation (Richmond, “Welcome Letter,” 2002).” Although developed specifica lly for Louisiana, there is still much room for adaptation within the state using local re sources and for the nation as a model (Richmond, “Welcome Letter,” 2002). The concept that only schools in areas particul arly rife with high-style historic buildings, or that the lessons will only tell a one sided story are dispelled in this statement, “both urban and rural schools, high and low socio-economic leve ls, and diverse cultural populations are represented. (Richmond, “Welcome Letter,” 2002)”. Non-traditional schools have embraced the program as well and are now using historic places to teach history and other subjects (Richmond, “Welcome Letter,” 2002). Teacher training is an integral part of th is program. Each summer Heritage Education— Louisiana offers workshops that use fieldtrips and in class exercises to make educators more completely understand the concept of placebased learning (Richmond, “Workshops,” 2002). Additionally, faculty from Northwestern State University help the teachers to create new ways to incorporate cultural resources into the curricula while still addr essing the statewide requirements (Richmond, “Welcome Letter,” 200 2). The two-day workshops create lessons that often translate directly into the cl assroom via multi-media presentations that are dynamic enough to engage students (Richmond, “Workshops,” 2002). Both to offset costs and to serve as a reward, Heritage Education—Louisiana offers grants of up to $2,500 for lesson development. Any school teacher in Louisiana can apply for 21

PAGE 22

the grants, but the lessons must focus on a historic site in the state. For the purpose of the grant, sites may be “historic structur e[s], archeological site[s], or cultural landscape[s] (Richmond, “Mini-Grants, 2002).” Save Our History In 2004, The History Channel introduced the Save Our History program to “demonstrate commitment to supporting local history education and historic pres ervation efforts in communities across America (Art s & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 6).” This program provides many free lesson-plans and activity ideas for educators, included not only in the Educator’s Manual , but through a monthly e-mail service delivering new plans directly to teachers (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 6). Save Our History encourages the use of historic sites and local preservation organizations in thei r lesson plans and even offers grants to help offset associated costs. The History Channel provi des $250,000 every year “to support collaboration between schoo ls or youth groups and history or ganizations on projects that teach children about their local heritage and acti vely engage them in its preservation (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 6).” Additionally, The History Channel provides incentives for quality programming in the form of cash awards, scholarships and recognition ceremonies in Washington, D.C. Awards are designed to reward both student and teacher excellence through dedication to historic preservation (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 6). The lesson plans are divided into appropria te levels for elementary, middle and highschool students. The Educator’s Manual took two years to develop and during that time was evaluated by multiple teachers and a consortium of experts from the National Council for the Social Studies (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 5). Each lesson conforms to 22

PAGE 23

history standards from all fifty st ates plus the District of Columbia and focuses on topics that allow direct connections between national and more localized events in American history (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 5). Th e lessons were designed to “provide an engaging, interactive way for young people to stu dy American History and appreciate their community’s unique heritage (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 5).” At its core, the program intends to “develop the next ge neration of historians an d preservationists,” and to help conjure “a sense of civic prid e and commitment among young people (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 5).” The “Documenting History Activity Guide” pr ovides lists of ideas and instructions for making “history live” through integrating community with school programming (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 16). This section encourages, through specific suggestions, how students can actively become a part of the preservation movement through exercises such as: adopting a historic site or neighborhood, “cleani ng-up history,” conducting oral histories, creating walking tours and learning how sp ecific neighborhoods evolved over time. Each lesson plan shows specifically whic h National Standards it meets, what the activities’ goals are, and also provides an overv iew of the plan. In addition a section entitled “[m]aking [h]istory [l]ocal” ends each lesson by creating the link betwee n outside organizations, or community activities. Although not every less on plan addresses architecture directly, many address other historic preservation topics, like designing museum exhibits, analyzing historic photographs and using primary source documents to bolster research. Most important in this publication is the introduction of the subject matte r to instructors, before any lesson plans are shown the manual describes the different pres ervation organizations and what they do. 23

PAGE 24

Represented in this section in clude: The National Trust for Hist oric Preservation, the National Archives, the National Register for Historic Places via the National Park Service and the Smithsonian National Museum of American History (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 8-15). Educators must be aware of historic resources and organizations and what services they can provide if there is any hope of successfully integr ating an appreciation for the built environment into the classroom or teachers’ lounge. Carol Shull, Chief of Heritage Educati on Programs for the National Park Service summarizes the main goals of heritage education in the following quotation: Learning from historic places in parks and communities is powerful – and transformative. Students of all ages more readily retain information, grasp meaning, and adopt new behaviors when directly involved with heritage sites. Participating in the preservation of historic places nurtures an aware citizenry engaged to a greater extent in American public life and in the future, identity, and quality of life in communities and the nation (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks: 2004, 11). Save Our History helps to propel these ideas thro ugh educating students about their surroundings. Brooklyn High School for the Arts In 1993, the World Monuments Fund (WMF) id entified a problem: a lack of a skilled preservation craft workforce (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Research Project,” 2004). WMF recognized that there were very few programs that train willing students in “these highly specialized skills needed to maintain our rich architectural legacy (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Research Project,” 2004).” Th e New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission identified over eleven hundred landma rks, eighty-three histor ic districts and just over twenty-three thousand landmarked structures in the City which will inevitably require skilled artisans to maintain and protect them (O ttavino, “Historic Preserva tion Research Project,” 2004). With the previous thoughts in mind, former City Councilman Ken Fisher proposed 24

PAGE 25

including a preservation oriented curriculum for inner-city high school students that would yield well prepared young adults ready to enter an in-demand, decently paying field (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Resear ch Project,” 2004). After a brief stint in Queens, New York the Preservation Arts program found its permanent home at the Brooklyn High School of the Arts n 1999. Since the beginning, Kate Ottavino, Director of Preserva tion Technology for the New Jersey Institute of Technology’s Center for Architecture and Building Science Res earch (NJIT/CABSR) has served as the project director for the high-school program (Ottavino, “Historic Preserva tion Research Project,” 2004). Working together with WMF and professional educators, they developed an interdisciplinary preservation centered curriculum for grades nine through twelve that includes real life projects around Brooklyn (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Research Project,” 2004). If students decide that preservation is specifically their area of inte rest, as juniors and senior s they can specialize in a more intensive Preservation Arts and Technol ogy curriculum. Since 1997 BHSA has worked with local corporations, government offices and the WMF to provide internship opportunities for interested students to get additional hands-on experiences (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Research Project,” 2004). Partnerships with other organizations, incl uding a grant from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training as well as with the WMF sponsored French-American Teacher Exchange Program further strengthene d the program (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Research Project,” 2004). In 1998 classes were videotaped and presented to the Board of Education, NJIT as well as curric ulum evaluation specialists as a model for future development. Two years later, the NYC Department of Education announced that preservation would be the main theme for BHSA, the first program like it in the country. As each state must test their 25

PAGE 26

students in accordance with th e 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, the educators have found ways to incorporate those topics into the traditional subjects and prepare the students for the New York State Regents examinations (Ottavino, “Histori c Preservation Research Project,” 2004). In 2004 BHSA graduated their fi rst class to have completed four years of preservation oriented education. Students who have decided to major in preserva tion arts and technology receive a Career Technical Education Diploma certifying their knowledge a nd ability to enter a job in the preservation arts (Ott avino, “Historic Preservation Res earch Project,” 2004). Not all students choose to end their formal education after high-school, and BHSA in cooperation with the Fashion Institute of Technology have developed an Associates Degree program specifically for BHSA graduates. The Associates Degree can ev entually lead to a Bach elor of Fine Arts in Objects Conservation, and FIT is helping to prov ide scholarship funding for those who wish to pursue this track (Ottavino, “Historic Pr eservation Research Project,” 2004). The concept that preservation does not have to be taught as a separate subject is critical, and the BHSA curriculum is designed “to allow st udents to view traditio nal subjects through the lens of historic preservation by focusing on a specif ic historic structure or artifact through which to study the elements of its creation, preserva tion, and interpretation (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Research Project,” 2004).” In fact, the idea that teachers of all subjects have a common theme helps by “organizing a consiste nt body of knowledge using a comprehensive approach to learning that will help students beco me aware of how different academic disciplines are integral to one another and how they are incorporated into workplace activities (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Re search Project,” 2004).” Any time that schools deviate from the norm, th ey must justify their reasons for the shift. NJIT/CABSR and the BHSA believe: 26

PAGE 27

The preservation arts program benefits soci ety in several ways: many students who might otherwise be marginalized in a high-tech world are educat ed academically and through artisan skills training and internships into the growing field of preservation arts; training artisans creates a work force that allows th e building industry to renew and preserve the infrastructure of our communities and regions; students who meet the academic requirements may choose to pursue post-second ary education; and the quality of life within our community will improve by the incr eased citizen awareness of the social and economic value of preserving the world we share (Ottavino, “Historic Preservation Research Project,” 2004). With those thoughts in mind, the project has as its primary goal to create a national model to be adopted in other parts of the country, thereby increasing the preservation workforce and quality of life. In the NJIT produ ced DVD, “Preservation Arts High School Curriculum in Action” principal Robert Finley says that students have a “love and natura l connection to the built environment, but are unaware of it (Ottavino, “His toric Preservation Resear ch Project,” 2004).” NJIT and the World Monuments fund are out to make all students aware. The Salvadori Center The Salvadori Center in New York City ai ms to provide student s at every level in disadvantaged NYC schools the opportunity to study design and the built environment with the assistance of professionals. Its roots date to 1976 when the New York Academy of Sciences issued a plea for new and invigorating ways of teaching middle schoolers math and science (Bettencourt, “About Us, 2006)”. Mario Salvador i, a professor at Columbia University and author of Why Buildings Stand Up, answered this challenge by teaching a class based on his book in some of the City’s inner schools. Af ter noted success using “real world design and construction activities” to teach principles of architecture and engineering he founded the Salvadori Educational Center on the Built E nvironment in 1987 (Bettencourt, “How We Started,” 2006). The Center, now known only as The Salvadori Center has improved and expanded to include other speci alized programming and projects (Bettencourt, “Education and 27

PAGE 28

the Built Environment,” 2006). The Salvadori Ce nter is a non-profit or ganization with funding from public and private grants, donations, and income from the sale of materials and in-service learning workshops (Bettenc ourt, “About Us,” 2006). The Salvadori On-Site Program, known as SO SP is the organization’s most involved curriculum. Four to six schools are selected annually as participants in SOSP for a renewable two-year contract. Each progr am begins with extensive teacher training and includes active weekly visits from an “architect educator” who not only conducts lessons, but also plans additional activities with the instructor. Hands -on activities in the classroom illustrate such principles as tension and compression, while using historic documents like Sanborn maps provide a sense of context (Bettencourt, “Our Work,” 2006). These lessons are complemented by field-trips, active off campus programs and participating in regional competitions (Bettencourt, “Salvadori On-Site Program,” 2006). In the 2005-2006 school year six schools participated in this program. Not every NYC school is fortunate enough to be a part of the On-Site Program and for those, The Salvadori Center offers the Reside ncy Program, which hosts day-long workshops or a series of in-class visits (Bettencourt, “About Us ,” 2006). In the inner-c ity, after-school programs are invaluable for personal development and offer the perfect opport unity for structured, supervised activity. Salvadori ha s created “Community: Past, Present, Future” to fill this void and allow students to take initiative in explor ing their neighborhood (Bet tencourt, “About Us,” 2006). Geography is no longer a barrier to the Salvadori curricula either; the organization encourages schools outside of NYC to “field test” lesson plans. After input from schools in all demographic and geographic strata the Center plans to publish two volum es of “the Project 28

PAGE 29

Book” enabling schools across the country to adopt aspects of the curr iculum. Until the books are published, several lesson plans ar e available on their website. The Salvadori philosophy is founded on project-based learning, or “learning by doing (Bettencourt, “About Us,” 2006).” The ideology takes much from a Chinese proverb, “I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand (Bettencourt, “About Us,” 2006).” They believe that their “teaching methods build on students’ natural curiosity, helping them make new discoveries through guided inquiry (Bet tencourt, “About Us,” 2006).” Educators are led, through Salvidori’s methodologi es, to integrate engineering and architecture into every portion of the curriculum from art, science, la nguage arts and mathematics to social studies (Bettencourt, “Curriculum,” 2006). Salvadori’s methods have quan tifiable benefits, in addition to the innumerable and arguably more important qua litative positives. Standardized test scores rise after students participate in the programs, as do overall interest levels in subjects like math and science (Bettencourt, “Frequently Asked Questions,” 2006). In addition, “theygain a tremendous sense of accomplishment from the tangible results of their work. Working on collaborative projects improves their problem-solving and social skills. Salvadori students develop a respect for learning that opens thei r eyes to career options they may not have considered before (Bettencourt, “Have Your Programs,” 2006).” The Center provides each school with “ar chitect-educators,” a corps of volunteer architects and engineers in addi tion to trained staff who visit classrooms weekly (Bettencourt, “Salvadori On-Site Program,” 2006). Teacher de velopment is the program’s keystone. Mario Salvadori said “[t]here is no doubt among educators that, once ever ything is said and done, the entire educational system revolves around one pivot: the teacher....[h] ence, the continuing education of the teacher remains one of the most important issues in modern education 29

PAGE 30

(Bettencourt, “Home,” 2006.” In this spirit, the Center runs a two-week Summer Staff Development Institute which instructs teachers in the program’s ideology and introduces them to the concepts that will soon permeate their cl assrooms (Bettencourt, “Salvadori On-Site Program,” 2006). Each teacher is given educat ional materials, access to the Center’s private libraries, funds to offset materials costs, and a support system. The Center facilitates teacher networking workshops and an online forum fo r participating educat ors to share ideas, frustrations and successes (Bettencourt, “Salvadori On-Site Program,” 2006). Center for Understanding the Built Environment Founded in 1983, The Center for Understandi ng the Built Environm ent is a non-profit organization geared to educate teachers and stud ents to not only appreciate their surroundings, but to become advocates for them (Graves, “C UBE’s Mission,” 2002). The mission states that “the ultimate goal of CUBE is not simply to enable children to learn to value the built environment, nor is it just to improve their probl em-solving and social skills. The fourth “R” in the CUBE educational model is Responsible Ac tion (Graves, “CUBE’s Mission,” 2002).” The Center, based in Prairie Village, Kansas, has de veloped books of lesson plans, in addition to a wealth of other teacher resour ces dedicated to creating a “curriculum for community making (Graves, “What is,” 2002).” CU BE’s curricula includes input fr om architects, preservationists as well as teachers in an effort to successf ully instill an appreciation for “good design, preservation and planning (Grave s, “CUBE’s Mission,” 2002).” CUBE not only provides material s for teachers to utilize within the classroom, the Center also holds training sessions for teachers, introdu cing the idea of herita ge education within schools to localities acro ss the country. These workshops discuss how educators can integrate CUBE’s goals with national educ ational standards (Graves, “Wo rkshops,” 2002). Educators are 30

PAGE 31

also given the opportunity of attending a class that delves into the principles of built environment and CUBE’s curricula at Mid America Nazarene University in Kansas City, Missouri to obtain graduate credit (Graves, “Workshops,” 2002) . Today’s conventional classroom is not the on ly place one can find CUBE’s “architivities” in action, in fact many museums and camps have adopted ideas from th e activity collections Box City and Walk Around the Block into their own repertoire (G raves, “Box City is 35,” 2004). CUBE runs their own “ArchiCamp” each summer in Kansas City for kids in fourth through eighth grades (Graves, “Workshops,” 2002). The Center for Understanding the Built Environment has developed lessons that have more to them than just clever names, they have substance and span topics from architectur e to zoning. With the ultimate goal of “knowledgeable community participation,” CUBE ’s programs have influenced thousands of students, and as the years co mpound these lessons may yield a more community conscious group of citizens (Graves, “CUB E’s Workshops,” 2002). Heritage Education Publications Heritage education has spawned a large colle ction of publications aimed specifically at introducing students to their colle ctive history via architecture. Many books specialize in the built environment, providing background, activities and lesson plans for teachers and parents. The following examples speak in broad terms and can be used in any region of the country. They include reading materials, plenty of illustrations or photographs and activities designed to peak and keep students’ attention. Architecture Everywhere: Investigating th e Built Environment of Your Community This book by Joseph Weber, a professor of art education at Southern Illinois University, includes ninety-nine classroom activities. At its heart, Architecture Everywhere has the goal to 31

PAGE 32

help students “discover a sense of belonging wh en they learn about local buildings and the history of their community (Weber: 2000, v).” The author sets out five objectives for students using the lesson plans all linking the built enviro nment to history, culture and ethnic diversity (Weber: 2000, v). Architecture Everywhere encourages teachers to share the classes’ work with the community via local display or publication in an effort to help studen ts further understand the subjects (Weber: 2000, vii). Each lesson is divided into five parts meant to familiarize students with the fundamentals of architecture: the foundation, desi gn, blueprints, construction and re source shelf. The resource shelf, meant to be reminiscent of an architect’s library, provides necessary drawings, photographs and definitions to fully complete each activity. All six units in this book focus on making a personal connection with the built enviro nment. Unit one asks students: “What Is a Sense of Place?” and then follows with “Do I Have One? (Weber: 2000, 1). Other chapters, including one entitled “O ur Historical and Cultural Connectio ns to Buildings” use historic and current photographs to analyze Main Street de termining how and why th ings have changed. Using topics with which the students are extremely familiar, like their home, helps to both enthuse students and give them confidence. Included in this book are brief, illustrated descriptions of many architectural styles which help children to further understand their built environment and how it fits into American history. Architecture in Education: a Resource of Imaginative Ideas and Tested Activities First published in 1986 by the Philadelphia Foundation for Architecture this book aims to teach children to understand the built environment in order to “enrich that environment, protect it, possess it as our own (Abhau: 1996, forward).” Due to the architecturally focused philosophy of the book, the lessons are also engineered to promote good design (Abhau: 1996, Forward). 32

PAGE 33

The Philadelphia Foundation for Architecture, the University of Pennsylvania, Temple University and local architectural firms coordinated with the Ph iladelphia public school system to educate students and teachers about the built environment starting in 1981. As of 1986, over one thousand public school childr en participated annually with many other school systems, and private schools contributing several hundred mo re pupils to the total (Abhau: 1996, Forward). Each lesson was developed to reflect basic architectural concepts using three specific avenues of thought: perceptual , social and technological (Abhau: 1996, Introduction). An educational team of one college architecture student, one architect and two teachers all collaborate to create curricula and activities. Between 1981 and 1986, architects involved in the program had volunteered over fifteen hundred hours (Abhau: 1996, Introduction). The Architecture in Education por tion of the Foundation has amas sed a large resource center providing both staff assistance and supplements like slides and worksheets to teachers. Additionally, the Center also runs workshops for students and teachers which in turn, create an environment for sharing educators’ successes an d techniques (Abhau: 1996, Introduction). The book provides an illustrated glossary meant to aid teachers in explaining both complex and simple architectural terms; from a broke n pediment to a Palladian window. Although authored before national sta ndards and testing requirements, the Architecture In Education lesson plans integrated themselves into sc ience, math, social studies, language arts and art. The lessons are geared toward the entire primary-secondary education gamut with activities for grades kinderga rten through twelfth (Abhau: 19 96, Introduction). Activities are organized to fit in both specifically architectural (design, structures, ma terials, interiors and exteriors) and contextual, broader subjects like: home, nei ghborhood, streets and cities. The 33

PAGE 34

final section looks specifically at Philadelphia’s architecture and plan. In total, there are one hundred seventy-four lessons exploring a wide variety of interdisciplinary topics. Many of the activities use the local area as a classroom, encourag ing exploration and observation. “Neighborhood [w]alks” have students looking for specific architectural elements, creating visual glossaries, and color-coded maps based on building use. The authors feel that “classrooms and schoolyards are rich laboratorie s immediately accessible for exploration,” and that “we must never make the mistake of equa ting environmental educa tion with the study of ‘somewhere else’(Abhau: 1996, Forwar d).” All of these lessons are intended to educate students about character defining features, and how to resp onsibly respond to them in the future, because “the survival of our society and our culture depends on it (Abhau: 1996, Forward). Architecture is Elementary: Visual Th inking through Architectural Concepts Architecture is Elementary aims to protect cultural heritage through garnering appreciation for its tangible counterpart, the bui lt environment. Author Nathan Winters likens historic buildings to an endange red species that is “in the need of protection” from “natural predators in the form of business, government , building codes, demolition crews and remodelers, and modernizers [who] worship at the altar of ‘pr ogress,’ as they faithfully destroy our cultural heritage (Winters: 1997, ix). Winters argues th at humans have an “i nalienable right to a heritage,” and feels that Steinbeck illustrated this point in Grapes of Wrath when he writes “how can we live without our lives, How will we know it’ s us without our past? (Winters: 1997, ix-x).” It is for these reasons that he attempts to raise visual literacy through concept and behavior based lessons (Winters: 1997, x). The book is designed to be used by children as young as five and by interested adults, as well. It is organized by difficulty of material, from easiest to must complex, levels one through 34

PAGE 35

seven. Winters focuses on developing critical thought processes rather than on specific core subjects. Instead of determini ng ratio and how a structure fits into the scheme of American history, lessons discuss how elemen ts are similar or different and uses visual cues to stimulate abstract thought. Since national education standards or testing di d not exist in 1986 when this book was first published, it does not adhere to an y specific state or nati onal requirements, but regardless of whether they are blatantly discu ssed, the lessons do take an interdisciplinary approach to architecture and pres ervation. Math, science, art, language arts a nd social studies are all embedded into the lessons, but they are not directly highlighted. In order to ask students to respond with accu rate information, they must first be provided with the material that sets the stage for critical thought. Winters chronologi cally lists the stylistic periods, showing a picture and providing a brief list of key features. Following the list of styles is a timeline that shows significan t buildings, and shows where American styles fit in the global design scheme. Anyone can use this book; it is not earmarked specifically for teachers but certainly can be used in the cl assroom. Museums, architectu ral firms, homeschool students, families and after school programs could certainly add this architecturally-based programming to their activity lists. Box City Box City is CUBE’s oldest publication at thirty -five years old and is their flagship program (Graves, “Box City is 35,” 2004). Th is collection of activities focuses on urban planning and who or what contributes to good co mmunity (Graves, “Cube Resource Materials,” 2002). The Kansas City School System uses this as a supplementary text in their classes (Graves, “Cube Resource Materials,” 2002). Box City includes activitie s like, designing a working city using boxes, roleplaying to understa nd permitting processes and playing “I spy” at 35

PAGE 36

historic sites to learn how they functioned and what they contribute to the built-environment (Morken and Johnson, 2002). Walk Around the Block Walk Around the Block focuses on community based e ducation and hopes to provide a basic framework for education. Ginny Graves, author of Walk Around the Block describes the book as “a self-discovery program for students, teachers, parents and ca regivers (Graves: 1997, iii).” Most activities included in the publication are geared towards grades three through seven, but can easily be altered for use with any age group (Graves: 1997, v). The book provides background information, suggested in -field activities, discusses impor tant issues related to the built environment and includes a list of final proj ects meant to get students involved in their community. The approaches used in this publica tion are rooted in comm unity activism but still incorporate interdisciplin ary studies (Graves: 1997, iii). Students learn how to hone their writing skills, to make maps, draw bar-graphs and even make an economic decision-making grid. All of the lessons are civically minded and ask users to have children conduct oral histories, give buildings report cards, assess environmental sens itivity and give awards to property owners who maintain their buildings or land. 36

PAGE 37

CHAPTER 3 FREE-CHOICE LEARNING The traditional classroom is not the only ve nue for heritage education. Another of heritage education’s key supporters lies outside of school. Free-choice learning, the relatively new buzz-word in museum education is defined by Falk & Dierking, leading museum education psychologists, as “the learning pe ople do when they get to control what to learn, when to learn, where to learn, and with whom to learn (Falk and Dierking: 2002, 6).” Through free-choice learning students of all ages are making a concerte d decision to attend supplemental classes, visit historic sites and even watch educational te levision programs (Falk and Dierking: 2002, 6). Museums are classic examples of free-choice learning. Although many of the organizations discusse d in the following section offer programs specifically tailored to school tr ips, they have still been incl uded here because of the many programs which do not necessarily ha ve to be accessed via a fieldt rip. Summer camps, trips to the museum with family and friends are all instances of free-choice learning. Though not every museum directly offers ar chitecturally based education units, the simple act of being surrounded and exposed to a different built environment can heighten awareness. Not only do those intr oduced to these place s get to visit the structures in a quasioriginal context, but they can take what they see and learn back to their own hometowns and neighborhoods. Free-choice learning is a life-l ong activity and not confined to primary or secondary education, but the action begins earl y in life and if experi ences are positive will continue indefinitely (Fal k and Dierking: 2002, 2). Colonial Williamsburg in Heritage Education Colonial Williamsburg (CW) has long been recognized as a leader in historic preservation, interpretation and education. The Museum’s mission, simply “that the future may 37

PAGE 38

learn from the past” illustrates the pivotal role education plays at the institution (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “That the Future,” 2006). CW epitomizes the ideals of heritage education through on-site and outreach interpretation. Whether it is child si ze view ports looking into the excavation of an 18 th century coffee house or stomping clay at the brickyard, hands-on forays into colonial life and the simultaneous reminders of active preservation surround the visitors (Author’s Note). CW recognizes the importance of bri nging American history to a new generation by providing resource s for teachers interested in making history more engaging (Author’s Note). Through advances in techno logy, the Museum has been able to evolve and expand their influence to students and teachers who will never have the ability to travel to the actual site. Ever changing, CW stri ves to educate not only about 18 th century life, but to introduce its active research, preservation a nd maintenance stories (Author’s Note). Kids Zone Another benefit of technology, Colonial Williamsburg’s advanced web-site includes a section specifically for and about kids. This si te combines educational games and activities with resources for parents and teachers. Included in the activities is one interactive ordering game that shows the steps 18 th century brickmakers used to turn raw clay to usable brick (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Brickmaker Build-up,” 2006). Visitors to the site must organize the eight illustrated steps in the correct order: stom ping the clay, removing inclusions and placing it in a mold, scraping the excess clay from the mo ld, allowing it to dry and removing it from the mold, setting the newly formed rectangles in sa nd, placing the bricks in a drying shed, building the kiln, sealing the kiln, feed ing it with wood, and finally fuelling the fire and watching the process (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Bri ckmaker Build-up,” 2006). After correctly ordering the steps, the visitor can view the animated characters complete the process in action. 38

PAGE 39

Perhaps the most beneficial aspect of this particular game is the appreciation it conveys for the complex, labor-intensive and time consuming pr ocess of brickmaking. After noting this complicated process, the respect for entire brick buildings will rise as well. Becoming Americans Study Visit Each year approximately one hundred and fift y thousand students ar rive in Colonial Williamsburg’s Historic Area eager to have a day or more away from the traditional classroom (White, 2006). Different age-specific programs are available for elementary, middle and highschoolers, but all focus around Colonial Willia msburg’s central theme, “Becoming Americans (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Prepari ng for Your Visit,” 2006).” The Group Interpretation Department sends trained interp reters to lead these groups through the area and discuss CW’s history and introduce the students to 18 th century customs and activities. Students learn how to construct something us ing period techniques, often the ob ject is a portion of fence, a mock shingle roof or an exercise in brickl aying (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Preparing for Your Visit,” 2006). The Education Resource Center, located within the Museum’s Visitor Center, provides pre-and post-visit lesson plans in an effort to ma ximize the fieldtrip’s impact for the students (Colonial Williamsburg Founda tion, “Educational Resource Center,” 2006). Teachers Institute As of January 2006 forty-four hundred teach ers had graduated from CW’s “Teachers Institute,” a week-long combination of handson activities and curricu lum development. Initiated in 1990, this program is available to teachers from elementary through high-school, is level specific and aims to help educators learn to “actively engage students in the study of history (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Teachers Institute,” 2006).” One of the program’s main features is the focus on integrating primary source documents into the classroom experience 39

PAGE 40

(Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Teachers In stitute,” 2006). Teachers are given the chance to actively experience 18 th century colonial life by researching certain historical figures, dressing the part, learning foodw ays, social customs and by mee ting important characters from American history (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Teachers Institute,” 2006). During their stay the students visit the other parts of the “historic tria ngle:” Yorktown and Jamestown. Another of the program’s strong points is the emphasis on Native Americans and enslaved African-Americans (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Teachers Institute,” 2006). Teachers are also given the opportunity of seekin g three graduate credit hours for the program through the University of San Diego. After th e program concludes these specially trained educators are given access to additional resources and are in cluded in teacher-to-teacher information consortium (Colonial Williams burg Foundation, “Teachers Institute,” 2006). Junior Interpreter Program Costumed “Junior Interpreters” (JI’s) ar e young locals who populate the historic area interpreting the life of 18 th century children. These ten to ei ghteen year olds undergo a rigorous application and selection proce ss in order to participate in this volunteer organization. Approximately fifty to sixty youth vo lunteers currently work at twelve sites in the historic area (Chilton, Pat: 17 October 2006, e-mail to author). Following acceptance into the program they enter an intense training that spans informati on from the creation of the Museum in 1926 to proper 18 th century language (Author’s Note). In addition specialty site -specific training sessions provide information about the areas wh ere each Junior will be working. Among the benefits for the Museum and the Juniors are the additional opportunities to participate in special projects, like building a kiln at the brickyard or whitewashing the Getty H ouse (Author’s Note). These volunteers are allowed special access to be hind the scenes areas off-limits to visitors, 40

PAGE 41

providing a more in-depth idea of the Museum’s inner worki ngs. Additionally, the Junior Interpreters are encouraged to attend supplem ental training opportunitie s on topics ranging from architectural history to the latest archaeol ogical discoveries made by staff archaeologists (Author’s Note). Certain JI venues even take fiel dtrips to different histor ic sites like Monticello, Mt. Vernon and the Farm Museum in Staunton, Virginia for unique behind-the scenes tours (Author’s Note). The program allows kids who possess an interest in their City’s histor y to participate in a hands-on opportunity and unique op portunity to become a part of a major community asset. Through this experience, it also provides the you ng adult with a greater understanding of their history and environment leading to a more tangible sense of place. Electronic Fieldtrips The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation rea lizes that although one hundred and fifty thousand school children traverse their museum, th ere are still millions who will never be able to make the trip (White, 2006). In an effort to fulfill the mission, Colonial Williamsburg developed “Electronic Fieldtrips.” Electronic Fieldtrips do just as their name implies, provide an opportunity for elementary and middle school stud ents to see and inte ract with Colonial Williamsburg and their staff experts who populate th e environment; just as if they were on a physical fieldtrip. Since 1999 CW has offered at least one Electronic Fieldtrip per year, now they have seven, with topics ranging from slav ery, colonial money and the American Revolution to advances in technology, the consumer re volution and even the recent archaeological excavation at Jamestown (White, 2006). EFT’s are currently broadcast to forty-eight states (White, 2006). 41

PAGE 42

There are four main components to EFTs; prefieldtrip lesson plans, the video component to the fieldtrip, the live intera ctive portion and the classroom follow-up. Pre-fieldtrip and postfieldtrip lesson plans and discussi on points are available online, as are other teacher resources all of which help set the stage and drive home the id eas represented in the fieldtrip itself (White, 2006). The main element of the experience is two-fo ld, a video sets a storyline where the topic is explained in-situ which is then followed by a question-answer period between students watching the fieldtrip, the characters they have just seen, and experts. The fieldtri p is broadcast via PBS, additional education stations, onl ine streaming, or directly to the school by satellite. Schools must pay to participate in the program and ca ll or e-mail questions for the characters/experts which are answered live (White , 2006). In the near future, Bill White, the Executive Producer and Director of Educational Program Developmen t at CW, hopes to have all EFTs available online so that educators can use the fieldtrip whenev er it fits best into their curriculum, not when it is broadcast. Also in the works are EFTs specifically geared toward highschoolers discussing history and civics (White, 2006). Elementary and Middle School teachers often re quest programs that show what daily life in colonial America was like, and EFTs show just that. CW always cons ults with educators to create effective lesson plans and pr ogramming that coincides with na tional standards. A team of between 8-10 educators and media producers de termine the story topics for the upcoming seasons; they also consider input from teachers through evaluations (White, 2006). Strawbery Banke Museum Located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Strawb ery Banke Museum is a ten acre site that showcases the evolution of a New Engla nd neighborhood from the 1690s-1950s. There are currently eight furnished houses, four exhibit buildings and many more awaiting restorations 42

PAGE 43

within the Museum’s grounds (W ebber, “Buildings and Exhib its, 2000). Strawbery Banke’s collection of buildings owes th eir existence to a group of passi onate people in the 1960s that stopped Urban Renewal from completely overta king the historic, but dilapidated neighborhood (Webber, “Puddle Dock,” 2000). School Programs Eleven thousand school children annually visit Strawbery Banke. While visiting the Museum schools have two types of visits to choose from: a self -guided experience or a museum teacher led “Time Travel Workshops (Coppola, “School Programs,” 2000).” Pre-visit lessonplans and a free pre-fieldtrip admission for the teach er are available to better prepare students for the experience. Workshops are geared toward f ourth-seventh grades and all include interaction with the historic structures on the property (Coppola, “School Programs,” 2000). There are currently six workshops spanning the topics of archaeology, architectur e, cooking technologies (18 th and 19 th century), immigration and maritime life. Many of the workshops combine primary source documents, hands-on activities and expos ure to collections items (Coppola, “School Programs,” 2000). Of particular interest is, “The Homes We Live In” which utili zes the historic buildings to discuss how people designed, built and adapted structures over time. In addition to learning about the families who occupied the homes, the students discuss how peoples changing needs are reflected in the architecture (Coppola, “Time Tr avel Workshops,” 2000). Activities in this workshop include assembling a post and beam model of a house they have actually seen in the museum, and designing an 18 th century floorplan. 43

PAGE 44

Summer & Winter Break Camps Every summer the Education Department offers between eight and ten one or two week day camps that allow children between the ages of six and sixteen to explor e an aspect of history they find particularly interesting (Coppola, 2006). Each camp utilizes the museum’s built resources, but many explore the behind the scen es activities and places that maintain the museum. Camps for younger children focus on histor ical fiction stories and then send the kids into the museum to do a relate d activity (Coppola, 2006). As child ren reach the age of eight and up, the selection of camps increases as does the level of complexity, focusing on primary source documents, emphasizing accurate research methods, and in some cases providing real-world experience. The Junior Roleplay er program allows kids between the ages of twelve and sixteen to study the life and time of a par ticular resident and then act as that character helping to explain the life of a child during that time as well as re lating more directly to youth visitors (Coppola, 2006). Crafty Kids focuses on craftsmanship a nd even sends campers on a scavenger hunt where they learn to pay attention to architectural details (Coppola, 2006). The Archaeology camp series has three components: camp one involves an actual excavation with trained archaeologists in an adult fieldschool, camp two focuses on la boratory practices and Camp three, run for the first time in 2005 discusses material culture, re search and culminates in creating an exhibit displayed in the museum (Coppola, 2006). Currently in process is an architecturally based camp which will focus on historic preservation. Most New England schools have a brief February vacation, and Strawbery Banke has adapted some of their summer programs to fit this shorter time period. 44

PAGE 45

Winn, Jackson and Sherburne Houses A significant portion of Strawbery Banke’s interpretive ideology stems from the Museum’s overall drive to preserve its structures . As the visitor strolls through the grounds they often meet exhibit buildings which focus on th e structure itself, its history, construction methodology and even how it was preserved. Exhibit panels in museums are generally written to an eighth grade reading level, making them acce ssible to middle and high-school students and facilitating dialogue between a dults and younger children. Sherbur ne House, built in 1695 was stabilized but not restored (Webber, “Drisco House,” 2000). Inside exhibit panels show the evolution of the neighborhood and then turn to the largest exhibit: the building itself. Labels and plexi-viewports indicate the names, existence an d functions of many of the structure’s pieces (Author’s Note). Jackson House, built betw een 1790-1800 and interpreted to show the 1950s highlights the “preserve as found” ideology (W ebber, “Joshua Jackson House,” 2000). On Jackson’s exterior north wall is another plexi-glass viewport showi ng the layers of construction: clapboard, lath, plaster keys and even a glimpse to the brick chimney (Author’s Note). Jackson and Sherburne allow visitors to see what an unrestored building looks li ke, and help to show that character-defining fe atures like worn stairs and crooked floors are not cause for alarm. Winn House is another exhib it building dedicated to ar chitecture and construction technologies. The exhibit tells the story of exactly how a bu ilding was built in 1795 (Webber, “Winn-Yeaton Connected Houses,” 2000). Like Sherburne, many vital elements have been labeled and are lit with spotlights; for example tr uss systems rafters and purlins are visible from the second floor in a special cut-through to the attic (Author’s Note). A catalog of doors and windows demonstrates the different levels of craftsmanship and st yle in a touch-able move-able display. Hands-on elements introduce architectural st yles and vocabulary to visitors of all ages. 45

PAGE 46

Diagonally across from Winn House is Peacock Hous e, with dated and pain ted lines that indicate the building’s previous itera tions (Author’s Note). 46

PAGE 47

CHAPTER 4 MATRIX EVALUATION In order to fully comprehend the elements that create a heritage education program a matrix (Appendix A) was created that evaluates specific lessons based on various characteristics which enables general analysis of the body of heri tage education activities. The curricula were evaluated using an eighteen point checklist. Ea ch characteristic was chosen because of its prevalence in a multitude of lessons or activities or because relevant literature called for its need. The thirty-three examples were given a mark of “N” for no, “Y” for yes or “P” for possible under each characteristic. Each lesson was evaluated independently and this matrix does not purport to stand as an evaluation of the larger programs of which they are a part. The lessons themselves were selected ra ndomly from the large collection of built environment plans amassed during the process of writing this thesis. The list is fairly comprehensive in the sense that it includes ac tivities developed specifically for traditional classrooms, those created for multiple environments and even some developed as museum preor-post visit guides. When possible, three lesso ns or activities were selected from the same source to act as a set. Three lessons were selected from all books, museums, the Salvadori Center, Save Our History and Teaching with Hist oric Places. The lessons were not chosen for any particular reason, but instead were picked by flipping randomly through books and lists of sources cited. Every effort was made to maintain a level of randomness among program selections, however, they were selected by a single person and human bias undoubtedly occurred on some level. Data After analyzing the thirty-thr ee programs based on the eighteen criteria determined previously, trends in the field b ecome apparent. Of the thirty-t hree programs randomly selected, 47

PAGE 48

72.7% were not so specific that they tied only to one site. Ne arly half, 48.5% of the programs utilized their surrounding neighborhood or ha d as its goal furthering knowledge about the neighborhood. Just slightly less, at 45.5% discussed a relationship to the greater region in the lesson or activity. Supporting what many agencies have said, 63.6 % of programs studied integrated their program into one of the core subjects. Only 42% of the programs met national or state learning standards, however the age of the program stock is important to note. 51.2% of the programs evaluated were created before the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which required national and state testing mandates. Once this fact or is adjusted for, the number of programs created after these requirements which answer the new needs is 56.3%. However, 31.3% of those programs created after 2001 were museum activ ities that do not have to comply with that legislation. The activity types and methods employed to teac h heritage education appear to pull from the same toolbox. A total of 60.6% of the samp le chose to include hands-on activities as a method for teaching specifically about the built environment. Of the heritage education programs evaluated, 60.6% had a specific focus on architecture or design. Also popular among program developers is using writ ing to further the learning expe rience, with 63.6% showing this method. Using public speaking through report presen tations or sharing information within the class and greater community was popular among 45.5% of the group. A majority, 66.7% of programs evaluated created a tangible product. “T angible products” in th is case refer to any project or activity which creates an object or written report. 51.5% of those programs include primary sources in the lesson. 48

PAGE 49

Very few programs utilize modern technology, defined here as using the internet, computer programs, satellite programming or high-t ech audiovisual equipment. Only five out of the thirty-three programs, or 24.2%, integrate these new resources. Of course, one does have to consider that for some of the programs develope d in the 1980s, these op tions did not exist. However, when looking specifically at program s created or altered from 2000 on, we find 47% using modern technology. An option for educators not particularly familiar with the built environment or heritage education, including outsid e presenters into the cu rricula or activity is always a choice. Only 15.6% of the programs sampled incorporate this possibility. The vast majority of lessons tested were intended for three or less class periods, with only 24.2% of the total structured as ongoing units. Three of thos e eight activities were products of the Salvadori Center who partners with schoo ls for two semesters. A somewhat surprisingly low number of programs involve community interaction, with only 42.4% of the sample participating directly with their communities. Br inging students directly to a historic site or walking them around their own neighborhood often i nvolves a physical fieldtrip, however with the invention of electronic fieldt rips this too has changed. Only 27.2% of the lessons require a change in location, but 12.1% leav e the fieldtrip as an option. On e of the thirty-three programs is an electronic fieldtrip so de serves its own category. While at the same time, 78.2% of the programs are geared specifically for the classroom, or at least have some classroom based component. Groupwork has long been thought of as an effective tool for increased academic and social learning, and 45.5% of the lessons assessed employ this approach. Further Analysis Trends in heritage education lessons appear to include wri ting elements, the creation of a tangible product, the use of hands-on procedures and they tend to be multi-disciplinary. The 49

PAGE 50

overwhelming number of programs that integrate themselves into the core subjects shows both the willingness of heritage edu cation curricula developers to wo rk within existing frameworks and the need to do so in order to be successful. The lack of programs in this sample that dealt with a specific site shows the movement to de velop programming that is useful to a broader audience. Interesting to note, but not listed in the tabl e is the inclusion, or lack thereof, of evaluation methods for many of these activities. Colonial Williamsburg did truly stand out because each lesson plan they have developed incl udes a measure of analysis so that teachers can understand what their students ar e absorbing and enjoying. It is imperative to view these programs on a timeline because state or national standards may not have existed at the time that the lesson was authored. Many of the activities that predate national or statewide sta ndards are still extremely viable programs and require only minor alterations to make them classroom ready. The matrix helps to identify common ground among a variety of heritage education programs and enables researchers or program developers to visually recognize what areas need attention in programming , like the use of technology. Additionally the matrix affords the opportunity to see what co ncepts work by viewing what characteristics are most popular. 50

PAGE 51

CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDIES Brooklyn High School for the Arts: a Case Study Standing at the security desk directly in side the doors of the Brooklyn High School for the Arts on Dean Street it becomes increasingly clear that preservation practices are valued. Panels showing different historic buildings a nd students at work in the field line the main corridor. Though the idea of a high-school teachi ng a preservation based curriculum is appealing and has much potential, it also brings with it ma ny challenges. BHSA has the best of intentions, but appears to fall short in some key areas, many of them outside of the school’s direct control. Preservation is expensive, especially in initial co sts. If the program has a vocational aspect or includes any lab work then extensive tools and equipment are needed. Perhaps another element that contributes to the challenges of a program meant to be extremely hands-on is an average class size of thirty stud ents (Inside Schools, 2005). A point of pride listed for many faculty and students at BHSA is the close knit relationships between faculty and students (Insid e Schools, 2005). When asking directions to the Preservation Arts classroom from security guards and even other teachers, they were unsure where the room was located and w ho would be in it. The staff appeared even more uncertain when, the program creator’s name, was mentioned; many had no idea who she was (Author’s Note). This observation leads one to question just how integrated preservation truly is in this school. Upon a visit to the preservati on arts classroom a major elem ent was missing: the tools. Inside this vocational classroom, there were no st acks of wood, no blocks of stone and no tools. Students are offered, and encouraged to spend an extra half hour in the classroom, but on this Thursday afternoon none of the freshman preservation arts students opted to stay past the bell. 51

PAGE 52

During class, the students had watched a vi deo about their neighborhood and were asked to follow along with a worksheet. Brooklyn High School for the Arts centers on a fantastic, innovative idea, but somewhere in the process key elements were lost. Howeve r, the mere exposure of students to historic preservation is a victory for heri tage education. The partnerships , principles and curricula for a successful program are in place but the physical infrastructure seems to be lacking. BHSA’s preservation arts program is still relatively new and perhaps with time these kinks will work themselves out and produce a skilled generation of preservationists. Salvadori Center In the spring of 2005, Patricia Shuford, a seasoned architect educator with the Salvadori Center, began working with Michael Markman and his seventh grade art class at MS 56 Corlears in New York City’s Lower East Side (Shuford: 2006, 1). Mr. Markman had attended one of the Center’s Summer teacher Institutes in 2004 a nd was interested by what connections the Salvadori Center could make be tween his class and the gentrify ing Lower East Side (Shuford: 2006, 8). Mr. Markman wanted to see his students excite d about the community that he loved. He wanted them to become informed, decision makers about their community. With the many rapidly occurring changes, Mr. Markma n wanted his students to get involved, to ask questions, share information with their families, and participate in a meaningful way in a rapidly changing community (Shuford: 2006, 1). Working with Mr. Markman, Ms Shuford developed a project that combined art and architecture with math, social studies, science and geography. The first step was to understand cities: who plans them, what elements are required to have a successful city, why cities change and who has power to guide those changes (Shuford: 2006, 2). After this basic foundation was laid, the students were able to delve into the social and 52

PAGE 53

geographic characteristics of the area. Mr. Ma rkman had grown up in the Lower East Side and related stories of what life was like when he was young which included discussing community advocacy and activism, but he also “spoke about the people, the architecture, the stores, the houses, the schools, the parks, the churches, th eir locations and why they were important (Shuford: 2006, 1).” The student’s first in-field activity was an existing conditions survey. In groups armed with cameras, Sanborn maps, clipboards and additio nal street maps the seventh graders took to the streets. While on this day long study the ki ds interviewed resident s, “viewed historic landmarks, architectural styles and became c ognizant of changes occurring they had never noticed in the past (Shuford: 2006, 6).” With that initial evaluation complete, the challenge became to invent a new project that would addre ss the Lower East Side’s most pressing needs (Shuford: 2006, 2). Each of the four student gr oups proposed a different idea, and despite the original plan of selecting one, Mr. Markman a nd Ms. Shuford decided to combine all of the concepts into “The Lower East Side Superplex (Shuford: 2006, 9).” This Superplex included affordable housing for the elderly, a community center, recreational spaces for LES’s younger residents and a shopping mall that would “bring back to the community a larger population of city dwellers and tourists to shop, to taste, to discover the LES, to tell others about [it] (Shuford: 2006, 9).” The next step: site selection and finding precedents. Finding a site with the size requirements to hold the Superplex was relativel y simple; the students selected an area of expansive parking and used maps to calculate the square-footage available on the lot (Shuford: 2006, 3). So began the homework, finding examples of developments that have incorporated similar uses into one structure or complex (Shuford: 2006, 3). 53

PAGE 54

The students chose the AOL Time Warner Ce nter at Columbus Circle on Manhattan’s Upper West Side (Shuford: 2006, 3). With a mode l at selected the cla ss moved to Phase II, determining what “essential spaces” were required for each portion of the project. Phase III consisted of developing a preliminary design (Shuford: 2006, 4). After the design was completed, Ms. Shuford drew a complete set of dr awings for all thirty-seven floors and the class proceeded to construct a scale model that was ov er three feet tall (S huford: 2006, 6). As the school year drew to a close, the students presen ted their work to the school community (Shuford: 2006, 8). Tampa Preservation Incorporated Tampa Preservation Incorporated, founded in the Florida city in 1973 has as its goal “to promote children’s understanding an d appreciation of the rich architectural and historical heritage of Tampa, and to encourage th eir sense of responsibility toward its preservation in the future (Hankins: 1997, 22).” Only six years after its incorporation, TPI brought their philosophy into the classroom with “Tampa Through Time,” a “multimedia classroom series to educate students about Tampa’s history and built environment (TPI, “Education,” 2003).” Their original education program was multimedia, incorporating videos, filmstrips, teachers guides and even activity book s (TPI, “Education,” 2003) . TPI then presented this program to the Hillsborough County Schools who still use the lessons in their fourth grade classes (TPI, “Education,” 2003). Approximately ten thousand new students are exposed to “Tampa Through Time” every year, and it has cumulatively reached more than 200,000 students (TPI, “Education,” 2003). TPI did not cap their educatio nal contribution in 1979; in this case they were just getting started. It was not long before Tampa Preservation Inc. had th eir own Education Coordinator 54

PAGE 55

who developed educational walking tours of two of Tampa’s National Register historic districts, to be used specifically by children (T PI, “Education,” 2003). The activity books, Discovering Ybor City and Discovering Hyde Park introduce students to arch itectural vocabulary, local history, how Tampa fits into a national timelin e and additionally asks participants to think critically about the information. Recognizing a changing dem ographic, TPI has created a trilingual coloring book about Ybor City, the former cigar fact ory section of town (TPI, “Education,” 2003). Copies of all educational material are gi ven, free, to fourth grade teachers who undergo any TPI training sessions (TPI, “E ducation,” 2003). In order to “bring the very best educational experience” to students and educators TPI ha s partnered with many local organizations, including the Tampa Bay History Center, Ybor C ity State Museum, H.B. Plant Museum and the Hillsborough County School District (TPI, “Education,” 2003). One of TPI’s newest publications, If Our House Could Talk tells the story of Hyde Park’s Leiman-Wilson House from the structure’s point of view. The book discusses the history of the prominent families who lived there, using hi storic photographs and other primary source documents, like family letters. After an introduction to its occupant and the general area, the narrative shifts focus towards the building itself; discussing the elements of Prairie style. Not only does the book tell the story of the family, but throughout the book there are vivid photos of details in the house, including patterns whic h are graphically replicated throughout the book emphasizing close observation. The story asks readers to become “building watchers” by “looking up, down, and all aroundfor shapes de signs, patterns, and styles (Gonzalez: 2003, 6).” 55

PAGE 56

The book concludes with a plea for increased awareness of the built environment, “remember as you grow up that no matter where you live, buildings tell the stories of the past, present and even the future. Take time to listen to them and look closely at the buildings that are important to you in your neighbor hood (Gonzalez: 2003, 18).” Incl uded in the text are three superscript abbreviations next to specific words, dates or places, “TL,” “M,” “V;” each refers to a timeline, a world map or vocabulary list found in the back of the book; a link to show how the house fits into American and loca l history, global geography and to reinforce the language arts capabilities of the book. Also f ound at the end of the book are sugge sted books to read, places to go, questions and analysis (Gonzalez: 2003, 25). If Our House Could Talk was only the beginning in the “Saving Yesterday for Tomorrow” series. In 2005, TPI in associati on with the Henry B. Plant Museum published If Our Hotel Could Talk , the story of the former Tampa Ba y Hotel. The hotel, opened in 1891, now serves as a component to the University of Tampa and is also home to the Henry B. Plant Museum (Gonzalez: 2005, 28). In the same manner as If Our House Could Talk this book tells the building’s story through its personification, a nd stresses the importance of being a “building watcher.” Inspired by the series, Lee Elem entary School with help from TPI created If Our Cupola Could Talk: The Story of Lee Elementary’s First 100 Years . Fifth grade students, school staff and Robin Robson Gonzalez of TPI researched the history of their school. After compiling all of the documentation, the group wrote the story cataloging Lee Elem entary’s change over time. When developing programming, TPI has a seven tie red approach they deem the “keys” to heritage education. In order to convince the school system to inco rporate the topics, they suggest that the “goals [of your organizati on] must match those of the distri ct or State.” Secondly, they 56

PAGE 57

feel that using hands-on, age appropriate, inte ractive activities are important, but recommend that professionally trained educators be consulted. “Just because you think or know something is important it is not to the average kid.” Thirdly, organizations should “always empower kids with knowledge,” showing them how they can use what they have just learned. Heritage education programs, if they are to be used in public schools must integrate themselves into core subjects. Fifth, TPI suggests that materials and training should “always go firs t class.” By creating top of the line products with curb appeal teachers are mo re likely to use them; the same can be said for teacher training sessions. Educators are more lik ely to attend workshops when they know that they will be courted with good food and luxuri ous accommodations. Number six, “life is PR,” shows how by self-promotion through inviting the press to attend a student presentation or tour can lend credibility to the program. Finally, and perhaps the most important suggestion on this list, heritage educators “must be professional (Gonzalez, Note to Aut hor, 17 September 2006).” TPI has a connection to anothe r star player in built envir onment education: CUBE, the Center for Understanding the Built Environmen t. After learning about the Prairie Village, Kansas organization, TPI set on a mission to bring a CUBE workshop to Tampa (Graves, “What’s A Q-Bee?,” 2000). They succeeded and brought Ginny Graves, Founder and Director of Outreach to Tampa where she conducted a workshop on how to incorporate the built environment into educational programming (Gra ves, “What’s A Q-Bee?,” 2000). Following CUBE’s visit to Tampa, TPI raised more than $600,000 for heritage education programs in the city (Graves, “What’s A Q-Bee?,” 2000). In th e late 1990s CUBE again returned to Tampa to find TPI’s educational outreach programs thrivin g. After receiving init ial training from CUBE, TPI set out to develop training programs for loca l teachers. Educators who participate in the 57

PAGE 58

workshops not only receive copies of books and activities but also a special Teacher Training Notebook (Graves, “What’s A Q-Bee?,” 2000). TPI’s heritage education efforts have not gone unrecognized. Tampa Preservation Inc. is the recipient of many awards and grants, including the History Channel’s Save Our History grant in 2004. This grant brought students to Washi ngton D.C. for a special award ceremony and provided TPI with $10,000 (TPI, “Awards,” 2003). TPI’s innovative programming should serve as a model for other organizations that wish to develop heritage education initiatives. Funding One problem that seems to be universal am ong heritage education programs is funding. BHSA, The Salvadori Center and Tampa Preservati on Inc. all constantly look for new sources of money. Program development, materials costs a nd formal evaluations all require substantial cash backing and for many schools or nonprofit organi zations that could be the variable that quashes the equation. Fortunately funding is av ailable via a multitude of methods, leading the pack are grants. Available at the national, stat e and even local level project and matching grants can offset or even totally cover those costs. Popular national grants are available from the National Park Service, Save Our History and th e National Trust for Hist oric Preservation. The following are examples of grants and organizati ons that often provide funding to causes like heritage education. Save Our History The History Channel’s Save Our History in itiative provides grants of up to $10,000 to history organizations in order to help those entities forge rela tionships with schools or youth groups (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks , “Preservation Organizations,” 2006). These grants are to be used to “inspire the youth in your community to become the preservationists of 58

PAGE 59

tomorrow (Arts & Entertainment Television Netw orks, “Preservation Organizations,” 2006).” Originally started in 2004, Save Our Histor y has provided $750,000 in grants to eighty-two organizations, all geared to engage younger ge nerations in preserving their own community’s history (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks, “Preserv ation Organizations,” 2006). In 2006-2007 Save Our History grants were aw arded to twenty-seven organizations in increments as high as $10,000. The recipients va ried from public libraries, museums, towns, preservation nonprofits and histor ical societies to institutes (Arts & Entertainment Television Networks, /2007 Grant Recipients,” 2006). National Endowment for the Arts The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is one of the count ry’s largest grant clearinghouses (NEA, “NEA at a Glance,” 2006). Organizations can apply for grants specifically for museums, art education and folk and traditional arts to name a few of the many (NEA, “Apply for a Grant,” 2006). Another option is to apply for a Presenting grant, which is specifically earmarked for multi-disciplina ry approaches and will fund documentation, preservation, touring and access and training (N EA, “Presenting,” 2006). Included in this category is the Save America’s Treasures grant, which is administered by the National Park Service in partnership with many governmental organizations, among them the NEA. The Grant is awarded to help fund preservation or conser vation work, “on nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and hist oric sites (NPS, “Save Ameri ca’s Treasures,” 2006).” This financial assistance can be used to rehabilitate or restore natio nally significant structures and sites, but can also support art and document care (NPS, “Save Am erica’s Treasures,” 2006). Supported through NEA, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences (IM LS) and the President’s Committee on the Arts 59

PAGE 60

and Sciences are the “Coming Up Taller” awar ds. These cash awards of $10,000 are given to fifteen finalists annually. These awards go to programs with a strong focus on humanities. Subjects of particular note for this grant include: history, design and multi-disciplinary studies (President’s Committee on Arts & Sciences, 2006). Institute of Museum and Library Sciences The IMLS National Leadership Grants award from $25,000 to $1,000,000 to museums and libraries that “help people ga in the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, and resources that enhance their engagement in community, work, fa mily, and society” annually (IMLS, “Available Grants,” 2006). One of the grant subcategorie s is “Advanced Learning Communities,” a concept that encourages educational pr ogramming and partnerships betw een the organization and other community entities. All non-profit museums, histor ical societies, librari es and institutions of higher learning are encouraged to ap ply (IMLS, “Available Grants,” 2006). The Partnership for a Nation of Learners Community Collaboration Grants are funded jointly by IMLS and the Corporation for Public Broa dcasting. This grant is available to the same group as the latter and seeks to “encourage librar ies, museums and public broadcasters to work collaboratively to address local needs, increase civic engagement and improve the quality of life in communities across the country (IMLS, “Available Grants,” 2006).” National Endowment for the Humanities One of the greatest resources available to prac ticing or aspiring heri tage educators are the “We the People” grants available through NEH. These grants are av ailable to non-profit museums, libraries and historic al societies for educational pr ogramming. Educational projects from kindergarten through undergra duate college classes, public programs in museums, libraries and historical societies and projec ts to preserve and provide acce ss to documents and artifacts are 60

PAGE 61

all eligible to apply for these grants. Subcategories within th e “We the People” context include: “Landmarks of American History: Works hops for School Teachers,” “Family and Youth Programs in American History,” “Interpreting Am erica’s Historic Places: Consultation Grants” and “Interpreting America’s Historic Places: Planning Grants (NEH, 2006).” The Interpretation and Education Fund is administered by the National Trust, but financed by NEH. This fund typically provi des eight grants annually ranging from $4,000$6,000 and is available to National Trust propertie s. The grant does not require matching funds and can be used to fund “to improve or enhan ce education and interpre tation, such as visitor education, historical research, school programs, or exhibit plan ning (National Trust, “National Preservation,” 2005).” Teaching American History The Teaching American History grants ar e administered by the US Department of Education and helps “teachers to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of American history as a separate subject ma tter within the core curriculum (US Department of Education, 2006).” The grant also notes that “funded programs will improve instruction and raise student achievement (US Department of Education, 2006). ” Educator development training is supported via the grant, and is intended to provide a bett er learning experience for students. One caveat for receiving the grant is that the applicant must enact the programmi ng in partnership with at least one other organization including: “institutions of higher learning, nonprofit history or humanities organizations, libraries or museums (US Department of Education, 2006).” National Park Service Since 1968, the National Park Service, th rough the Historic Preservation Fund has provided over one billion dollars to fifty-nine “states, territori es, Indian tribes, local governments 61

PAGE 62

and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NPS, 2006).” These grants can be used to develop and disseminate educational materials and are given directly to State Historic Preservation Offices (NPS, 2006). States are generally awarded a figure near $573,000 through the fund and receive $382,000 in “non-federal matching share contributions (NPS, 2006).” Conclusion Money is available to those dedicated indi viduals who know how to both find and write grants. Funding is availabl e through many avenues includi ng lobbying and fundraising, but grants tend to be the most popular approach. Only a few of the larger gran ts are listed above, but still others are available from organizations like the American Institute of Architects, the National Center for Preservation Technology an d Training, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and through many othe r organizations, both large and small. Increased publicity and a database of current grants available to he ritage education programs would be helpful for all involved in the process. Perhaps at each teacher training session a heritage education organization runs, a portion of the program should be dedicated to how to successfully author grant applications. The funding is ava ilable to those who wish to find it. 62

PAGE 63

CHAPTER 6 NEWLY DEVELOPED HERITAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS After reviewing the components to successf ul heritage education programs, it makes sense to develop new activities and curricula. The following two programs have been developed for very specific locales and for extremely unique markets. Both programs encourage students to become more aware of their surr oundings, to understand change ove r time and look critically at the built environment. Adventures in ACKitecture! Adventures in ACKitecture! A kid-friendl y introduction to reading and appreciating historic buildings on Nantucket (Appendix B) was developed as an independent project for the Preservation Institute: Nantucket during the su mmer of 2006. Nantucket Island, located thirty miles off the coast of Massachusetts has remained a tourist destination since 1880, with a current population increase of forty-thre e thousand people during the summer high season (Nantucket Island Chamber of Commerce, 2006). This high volume of visitors crea tes a captive audience constantly surround by a rich architec tural history that includes many 17 th , 18 th and 19 th century structures (Nantucket Island Chamber of Commerce, 2006). This unique and comprehensive architectural collection reflects major changes in Island religion, economy and stylistic campaigns. The Island is facing a preservation ch allenge: gutting (Rohzon, 1999). Gutting is the removal of interior features or configurations but may have no impact on the structure’s exterior (Rohzon, 1999). Raising public consciousness about hi storic structures may help to rectify this problem. Adventures in ACKitecture! is, in essence, a consumable walking activity book meant for vacationing families and residents alike. With a focus mainly on downtown Nantucket, ideally this document will be used jointly by parents and children as they walk, bike or drive their way 63

PAGE 64

around the Island. Through new and historic photogr aphs children can compare where they are to the buildings in the images. To begin it asks children to “look up and l ook down. Look up close and from far away” and to identify basic shapes that serve as building blocks on the Island. The document also emphasizes change over time by showing historic photographs of extant Na ntucket buildings and asking children to find them today and compare. Families should analyze the building in its current state and determine what similarities or differences are visible. Additionally, Adventures in ACKitecture! seeks to familiarize children and pare nts alike with correct architectural terminology while at the same time dispelling myth s like that of the “widow’s walk.” Adventures in ACKitecture! helps children to relate to and understand the fact that people much like them lived in these houses centuries ago, and that people still do occupy the structures. The “Who Lives Where?” activity asks children to match fictional characters from an 18 th century Quaker to a modern third grader to a hou se that they could have occupied. Included in the guide is also a “cheat sheet ” to help the user determine th e age of Nantucket buildings by looking at the roof, placement of the chimney and the front door. The activity book then asks the families to apply this knowledge to analyze three buildings via photograph or by physically viewing the house and then order them from oldest to newest. To chronologically order the structures the book directs the child ren to identify where the roof, ch imney and entry are located. As the document concludes it lists local preservation resources, with contacts, so that interested groups or individuals can explore Nantucket’ s history. The end also makes a point of mentioning that many of the organizations run specialized children’s programming. There are three essential elements embedded in Adventures in ACKitecture : enabling a dialogue about the built environment between pa rent and child, asking children to analyze 64

PAGE 65

structures and connecting them to the human ex perience as it spans the centuries. These three concepts encourage critical thinki ng and result in an increased leve l of awareness. It is through these elements that families can begin to apprec iate their surroundings and heighten their levels of built environment consciousness. Building Detectives Building Detectives (Appendix C) is a week long camp developed specifically for Strawbery Banke Museum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The outline format used is the paradigm SBM uses for all of their camps. This camp is one of four in the archaeology series and focuses on what can be learned about a structure through studying the building itself and conducting research. Geared towa rd ten to twelve year olds, the group will create a miniHistoric Structures Report and be formally in troduced into historic preservation practices through hands-on activities. Building Detectives 2007 will use the entire museum as a classroom, but will concentrate research and documentation on the Yeaton House. In 2004 an HSR was completed for the 1795 House, currently in need of restoration and used as storage, and that information will serve as the Museum Teacher’s key to guide students’ activities. Due to limited time, the camp HSR will look into the history of a single room on the second floor (keyed as 2-NE in the HSR). This room was selected because of its obvious layers of alteration and rich social history. During the early-mid 20 th century the home was divided into multiple apartments and this room composed one apartment with a shared bath and kitchen on the floor. Additionally, this space shows a r ecently added closet and multiple layers of wallpaper. There is enough information visually exta nt in the room that it will enable campers to readily see the room’s history, setting them up for a successful project. Each student will receive a kit including a drafting pencil, eraser, hardhat, ruler and safe ty goggles. These tools of the 65

PAGE 66

trade will be supplemented by a clipboard and fold er filled with graph and notebook paper which the campers can use to gather information for the HSR. By working in an unrestored building in need of major work (but structurally sound) campers develop an appreciation for historic stru ctures and learn that not all structures in disrepair are lost causes. The group will view other restored bu ildings in the museum and be exposed to “before” documentation to see the journe y buildings can take on the road to recovery. Through researching primary sources and creating simple measured drawings campers learn the steps preservationists must take to rehabilitate or restore buildings. St udents will also meet professionals and be given the opportun ity to learn from their expertise. At the close of the camp, the group will have been exposed to concepts such as urban renewal, sense of place, character defining f eatures and become versed in architectural vocabulary so that they can now “read” build ings. The final product, which will include measured drawings and research, will then be presented to their family and the Museum’s administration, providing opportunity for them to showcase their work. Evaluation forms will be sent to each child after the camp so that future attempts will be even more successful. Strawbery Banke Museum has agreed to pilot this camp the w eek of August 6, 2007 (Coppola, Bekki, e-mail to Author, 28 October 2006). Building Detectives as an Ongoing Unit Another option is to turn this program fr om a camp to an ongoing lesson partnering Strawbery Banke Museum with a local school. In order to bolster this integration it is necessary to adapt the activities so that they use a multi-disciplinary approach and meet New Hampshire state standards. The project has the potential to meet middle school standards in science, history, social studies, mathematics, language arts and visual art. 66

PAGE 67

The next important step is to find local te achers and school systems willing to let their students out of the classroom for one or more mornings/afternoons per week. As an ongoing project, and dependent upon the st udents’ grade level, the Historic Structures Report could be expanded from its miniature camp-form to include an entire floor, or perhaps the whole structure. Additionally, the program could be expanded to incorporate budgeting for restoration or stabilization costs to combine real-w orld skills with mathematics. Building Detectives also has potential to act as a sc hool workshop in a greatly simplified form. As a workshop, students could visit an unrestored house and be exposed to measured drawings, even practicin g with scaled graph paper. St udents could be introduced to the important role that documentation plays in historic preservation and th en discuss how urban renewal altered the area. 67

PAGE 68

CHAPTER 7 HERITAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS BY STATE In 2006 every State Historic Preservation Office in the fifty states was asked via letter to explain any education programs with which th ey are involved, what if any intra-state communication forums there were fo r heritage education programs in their state and if their were any specific heritage education ini tiatives in their states. In tota l, ten of the fifty responded and only three, Arkansas, South Dakota and Wisconsin had direct involvement in some form of educational programming. In late 1996 and 1997 Middle Tennessee State Un iversity conducted similar, but more directed and comprehensive research on the topic for their Focus on 2000: A Heritage Education Perspective . By sending a survey to all SHPOs a nd following up via phone calls, e-mails and faxes, the authors managed an eighty percent return rate (Hankins: 1997, 12). A second survey was posed to one hundred twenty heritage organi zations located throughout the country. This process generated a lesser rate of response, 43% (Hankins: 1997, 12). The four page surveys sent to the SHPOs asked each organization to categorize its relationship w ith heritage education offering seven choices to describe the role the Office plays in the stat e’s heritage education programs. The form then sought to establish the number of staff dedicated to heritage education programs, what the programs are, what training they provide, any affiliations and how as an organization they utilize the internet (Hankins : 1997, 43-47). All of this information was compiled to develop a heritage education profile for forty states (Hankins: 1997, 12). Alabama The Alabama Historical Co mmission manages many sites throughout the state and many cater to children via fieldtrips or as resources for students. Al abama’s fourth grade curriculum includes the study of state history and many of thos e children visit the historic State Capitol each 68

PAGE 69

year. Most of the heritage education programs fa ll to individual historical societies, like the Birmingham Historical Society, who has created many downtown -based exercises, and Old Alabama Town (Neubauer, John. No te to Author, 5 October 2006). According to Focus on 2000 Alabama’s role in heritage education consisted of providing grant support, co-hosting a biennial workshop fo r teachers, and they had monetarily backed heritage education training se ssions in addition to learning tools like “traveling trunks” and audio-visual supplies (Hankins: 1997, 17). Arkansas Positioned on the tab next to “Section 106 Review” on the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) website is a li nk marked “Youth Education (AHPP, 2004).” AHPP is highly committed to educating the stat e’s youth about their surroundings and does so via lesson plans, tours, workshops and competitions. AHPP has an Education Research Coordinator on staff that deve lops programming and travels to schools, scout troops and homeschool groups (AHPP, 2004). All lesson plan s are developed specifically for Arkansas students and are linked to state so cial studies, visual arts and hi story guidelines (AHPP, 2004). AHPP has developed a set of lesson plans fo cusing on historic preservation that span architectural style, constructi on methodologies, life in one room schoolhouses and even historic depots and railroad history (AHPP, 2004). Another opportunity for educators is the “Home for History Traveling Trunk,” which is geared to students in grades two-six (AHPP, 2004). This resource filled with preservation-minded ch ildren’s books, games, lesson plans and teacher materials is loaned to schools throughout Arkansas. In addition to other curriculum based pr ogramming, AHPP holds an annual contest for fifth graders entitled the “Preserve Our Past Historic Preservation Ar t & Essay Invitational 69

PAGE 70

(AHPP, 2004).” The competition is held in recognition of National Historic Preservation Week, and winners receive trophies, cert ificates and have their work displayed at the Old State House Museum in Little Rock. Each e ssay or piece of artwork must rela te to one of Arkansas’ historic sites (AHPP, 2004). In 1996-1997 the Arkansas SHPO had two full ti me heritage education staffers (Hankins: 1997, 18). They developed resources and programs “to offer a variety of state, community, and site specific materials to teachers (Hankins: 1997, 18).” It appears that Arkansas has been dedicated to educating its youth a bout the built environment consisten tly for at least ten years. Many of the programs offered today, like the wide variety of lesson plans and traveling resources like slides, videos and games are still offe red today (Hankins: 1997, 18). Additionally, the SHPO held “in-service credit workshops” for educators throughout the year, at no cost to the participants. Their programs were in such high demand that they planned to expand their programming, and have accomplished that goal (Hankins: 1997, 18). Colorado The SHPO is not involved dire ctly in any primary-secondary education programs, nor is there a forum for communication for any programs in the state. However, closely tied to the SHPO is the Colorado Historical Society with its president serving as the State Historic Preservation Officer. This organization has an ed ucation department specifically geared toward in-classroom education through the use of trained experts or cost umed volunteers who tell the story of early Native Americans and pioneers (Black, Kevin. e-mail to Author, 26 September 2006). Two additional lessons focus on archaeology and using primary sources to interpret the past . The Historical Societ y also holds a vocational archaeo logy training program (PAAC), a continuing educational opportunity allowing adul ts and older teens to gain a certificate in 70

PAGE 71

archaeology through thirteen courses comprised of field and laboratory work. Colorado also has strong Native American heritage education programming exemplif ied in organizations like the Bureau of Land Management’s Anasazi Herita ge Center and the Cr ow Canyon Archaeological Center have a variety of educational programs and teacher resources (Black, Kevin. e-mail to Author, 26 September 2006). The Colorado Historical Society, at the time of Focus on 2000 provided “heritage education materials, tours, workshops, teacher programs and traveling trunks” through their Education Director (Hankins: 1997, 19). Though still not associated with the SHPO, the Historical Society has retained a Director of Education and Inte rpretation who works specifically on these programs. Archaeology has become one of the main focuses of the state’s education programming. Both the Anasazi Heritage Ce nter and the Crow Ca nyon Archaeology Center were listed as additional organiza tions offering heritage education programs in the earlier study as well (Hankins: 1997, 19). Indiana The Indiana SHPOs office is not directly involved in any classroom heritage education programs, but they have developed some public outreach initiatives that incorporate the subject (Walker, Amy. e-mail to Author, 2 October 2006). They do however; have programs for educators that focus on the Underground Railroad. In addition, they hold ev ents for Preservation and Archaeology Months and partner with other statewide organizati ons that deal directly with students. The Historic Landmar ks Foundation of Indiana, the Indiana State Museum, Indiana Humanities Council and the Indiana Historical Bu reau are all committed to heritage education and have a closely connected relationship with the SHPO (Walker, Amy. e-mail to Author, 2 October 2006). 71

PAGE 72

Indiana’s SHPO did not respond to the 1996-97 inquiries. Instead, the report cites the Indiana Historical Bureau as the state’s “lead ing heritage education organization (Hankins: 1997, 24).” Through their two publica tions, “Indiana History Bulletin ” and the “Indiana Historian” they supplied information regarding oral histor ies, genealogy, historic documents, community history and cemetery stud ies (Hankins: 1997, 24). Montana Montana’s State Historic Preservation Office is located within the Montana Historical Society. Through the Historical Society the SH PO has developed many education and outreach programs which take the form of hands-on classr oom activities, summer camps and fieldtrips. Part of the hands-on portion of the classroom act ivities are the nineteen History Trunks, which provide documents, lesson plans and artifacts that correspond to different parts of Montana’s history. Of particular interest to this study is: “Architecture: It’s All Around You!” This lesson “explores the different architectural styles and elements of buildings, urban and rural, plus ways in which people can preserve buildings for fu ture generations (Montana Historical Society, 2006).” All of the curricula meet both national and state standards for social studies and also meet the Essential Understandings Re garding Montana Indians (Bauml er, Mark. Note to Author, 29 September 2006). Fieldtrips to Montana’s Muse um, the Original Governor’s Mansion and the State Capital all allow students opportunities to learn more about the built-environment through first hand experience. Montana Historical Soci ety offers many program s relating to archaeology and has received grants from the Society for American Archaeology to develop Ancient Teachings, a group of lesson plans geared toward el ementary and middle schoolers that teach about archaeology and pre-history (Baumler, Ma rk. Note to Author, 29 September 2006). One 72

PAGE 73

of the lessons in this curriculum includes a section on ancient shelter that discusses types of Native American structures and what archaeologi sts can learn about the people based on remains of their homes (Montana Historical Society, “Theme 5,” 2006). The Montana Historical Societ y is still, as it was in 1997, c onsidered the state’s leading heritage education enti ty (Hankins: 1997, 28). Focus on 2000 provided relatively little information about the SHPO or Montana Histori cal Society’s actual inte raction with heritage education; it merely shows that they exist. Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania SHPO does not provide direct education programs for children. Instead they help non-profits, municipalities, co mmunity officials and th e like to understand the value of preservation (PHMC, 2005). The role of teaching school children the built environment’s importance falls to the Penns ylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) by way of the State Museum of Pennsyl vania and the Pennsylvania Trail of History (Coulter, Jean. e-mail to Author, 28 Septembe r 2006). The PHMC has developed educational programming at all of their mu seum sites and has also begun a distance learning series, allowing students to learn about assets a ll over the state (Coulter, Jea n. e-mail to Author, 28 September 2006). Focus on 2000 indicates the PHMC as the primary he ritage education organization in the state, just as it is now (Hankins: 1997, 33). The majority of PHMC herita ge education activities, services and materials were c onducted through their historic site s and museums, again like today (Hankins: 1997, 33). The Pennsylvania SHPO id entified several other entities that include heritage education programming: the Easton Heritage Alliance, Pittsburgh History and 73

PAGE 74

Landmarks Foundation, Steel Industry Heritage Corporation and the Philadelphia Foundation for Architecture (Hankins: 1997, 33). South Dakota The South Dakota State Historical Soci ety, which houses the State’s Historic Preservation Office, has develope d several heritage education pr ograms. All of the curricula have been developed with the ideology that her itage education provides a sense of “identity and education, civic pride and quality of life, aesthetics and economics and recycling to avoid waste (South Dakota State Historical Society, “Places worth Exploring,” 2006).” One of their key publications is “Places Worth Exploring” a project developed by Hi storic Preservation Information Service, the Historic South Dakota Foundation and the State Historical Society/Preservation Office (Vogt, Jay. e-mail to Author, 28 September 2006). This collection of forty lesson plans uses South Dakota buildings on the National Register to teach classes focused on five topics, design and drawing activ ities, historic preser vation and observation activities, history activities and shelter/making a home activities. The programs target grades 512 but some can be adapted to suit younger stud ents (South Dakota Historical Society, “Places worth Exploring,” 2006). A second series they have produ ced is “SD4history,” oriented to the fourth grade; this curriculum is tailored to meet the South Dakota history state educationa l standards (Vogt, Jay. email to Author, 28 September 2006). Not only are lesson plans provided to teachers, but educators are also given the opportunity to request the Historical Societ y’s “treasure chest” a suitcase filled with tangible teaching aids. The program was develope d collaboratively with what was the Department of Education and Cult ural Affairs and the Hi storical Society (Vogt, Jay. e-mail to Author, 28 September 2006). In cluded on the SD4History website is the 74

PAGE 75

“Teacher's Extension Warehouse;” a selection of materials created by other South Dakota teachers and placed on the site to benefit othe r teachers looking for additional materials (South Dakota Historical Soci ety, “SD4History,” 2006). Since The Heritage Education Network’ s study, South Dakota has expanded their programming. The State Histor ical Society has added “SD4History” and the “Teacher’s Extension Warehouse.” “Places Worth Explori ng” was the SHPO’s crowning achievement in 1997, and still remains a point of pride with th em today (Hankins: 1997, 34). Additionally, South Dakota offered multiple teacher workshops . In 1997 the SHPO was developing a catalog of helpful resources for educators, including items like audio-visual material, and general information on “architecture, Nati onal Register properties, hist oric farms and historic sites (Hankins: 1997, 34).” This information is now available in many different ways, through “Museum Suitcases” which include hands-on acti vities, artifacts and additional resources, through “traveling exhibits” and “ online exhibits (South Dakota Hi storical Society, “SD4History, 34).” Washington The Washington State Historic Preservation Office is not currently involved in any primary-secondary school education programs, but they have considered them (Griffith, Greg. email to Author, 6 October 2006). Unfortuna tely, roadblocks li ke funding, staff and Washington’s education structure stand in the way of fully incor porating heritage education into schools (Griffith, Greg. e-mail to Author, 6 Octo ber 2006). However, the SHPO is indirectly involved in a great deal of educational programming. They participate in the Washington competition of National History Day, Archaeolo gy month and preservation month. Additionally, the SHPO does make staff available to schools upon request and they ha ve developed electronic 75

PAGE 76

resources on historic sites as part of mitigati on processes which could work well in a classroom. Certified Local Government grant funds have been distributed to communities to develop school curricula, walking tours and inte rpretive plans (Griffith, Greg. e-mail to Author, 6 October 2006). While the SHPO is loosely involved in educational programming, other organizations in the state have developed programming. The e ducation department at the Washington State Historical Society has created several programs as has Historic Seattle. Recently a local Olympia teacher developed a school curriculum package entitled “Sylvester’s Window” that received an award from the SHPO in the sp ring of 2006 (Griffith, Greg. e-mail to Author, 6 October 2006). Heritage Education in Washington has come a long way since 1997 when the SHPO was just in its beginning stages of designing a program. Instead, the Washington State Historical Society was listed as the primary heritage educ ation organization in Washington, an entity still thought of as the professional leader (Hankins: 1997, 38). Although the SHPO has increased their level of involvement in heri tage education, they still rely pr imarily on other institutions. Wisconsin The Wisconsin Historical Society, which includes the SHPO, incorporates heritage education as part of their missi on: “[t]he Society engages the public with the excitement of discovery, inspires people with new perspectives on the past, a nd illuminates the relevance of history in our lives today (Wisconsin Histor ical Society, “About,” 2006).” The Historical Society offers site tours and routinely speaks to school groups. The organization has also published student activity guides and books on thei r archaeological, maritime and prehistoric burial mound resources (Rosbrough, Amy. Note to Author, 16 October 2006). The Wisconsin 76

PAGE 77

Historical Society’s “Teachers and Students Portal” provides le sson plans for both primary and secondary education, “just for fun” games and activities and digital archives of primary resources. Additionally, the Office of School Se rvices helps teachers ut ilize their resources, provides professional development workshops a nd develops heritage education programming (Wisconsin Historical Society, “T eachers and Students Portal,” 2006). Apparently, the Wisconsin Historical So ciety has greatly expa nded their heritage education programming since Focus on 2000 . In 1997 Wisconsin was listed as only supplying some information and materials regarding “historic architecture, national re gister properties, and historic farms (Hankins: 1997, 38).” Not only have the subjects expanded to include prehistoric sites and maritime preservation, but their interaction with heri tage education has significantly increased. Wyoming According to an e-mail from Wyoming’s SHPO , they are not curren tly involved in any heritage education programs (Weidel, Nancy. e-mail to Author, 19 October 2006). However, in Focus on 2000 the SHPO is listed as offering teach er workshops “dealing with Wyoming architecture and community grow th (Hankins: 1997, 39).” They are also listed as providing heritage education materials, re sources and activities regarding “historic architecture, National Register properties, community history and hi storic sites (Hankins: 1997, 39).” In 1997 the SHPO also provided audiovisual to ols like slides and videos via loans (Hankins: 1997, 39). This is the one example of a significant decrease in heritage educationa l focus shown in the responding group. No reasons for this change were given. 77

PAGE 78

Conclusion Unfortunately, due to the small capture rate this year, it is impossible to make any accurate comparisons or draw conclusions about how states address the subject. However, it is possible to compare the responding state’s current programs to those that were extant nearly ten years ago. Through this analysis it is evident that the majority of states, nine out of ten, have either maintained or increased their interaction with heritage education. The outlier, Wyoming, was the only state to experience a decrease in programming. 78

PAGE 79

CHAPTER 8 DETERMINING SUCCESS Evaluating a program’s effectiveness is key to creating a strong program and can be the essential link to funding. Some fo rms of evaluation, like math test s, are simple and quantitative, providing a numeric basis for comp arison; a score before the progr am and a score after. The improvement, stability or decline in that score defines how well the lesson taught the subject and how much effort the student expended in studyi ng. For many programs, determining success is not that cut-and-dry. Most her itage education programs are interd isciplinary and have a change in values as a primary goal. To evaluate th ese programs one must combine quantitative and qualitative measurements. Do students have a greater appreciation for their environment and a better sense of place? Those questions, though of ten a desired result from built environment education, are extremely difficult to measure (Loncar and Graves: 1994, 2-3). It is impossible, let alone impractical to track every child exposed to heritage education programming in an effort to see what careers they choose. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in collaboration with the Sierra Club of Canada authored a document entitled Measuring the Success of Environmental Education Programs . The parallels between environmental and heritage education are many and both face difficult evaluation procedures. These organi zation believe that thorough evaluations “can improve program quality, [i]mprove student lear ning, and ultimately assist the program to achieve its goals, which may include such things as [a] higher degree of student involvement and benefits to the environment (Thoms on, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 16).” Perhaps most suited to evaluating heritage education programming are outcomes-based assessments. This form of evaluation “looks at the impacts, benefits, or changes to your clients – students teachers, etc.as a result of your efforts during and/or after thei r participation in your 79

PAGE 80

program (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 19). ” Determining exactly what the desired outcome is, can be problematic, as well. Often th ose interested in heritage education hope that program attendees will learn to respect their surroundings, gain an appr eciation for them and ultimately when faced with a related situation during their lifet ime, make a sensitive decision (Hunter: 1992, 6). Developing a goal outcome th at is not dependant upon a lifelong study, but rather one that constitutes a fast and easily identi fied change is the true challenge. Outcomes simply “describe the true change s that occur to people, organizations and communities as a result (Thomson, Hoffman, Stanif orth: 2003, 20).” They are “the actual impacts, benefits, or changes for participants during or after your program, expressed in terms of knowledge, skills, values or behaviours (Thom son, Hoffman, Staniforth : 2003, 20).” Many of heritage education’s goals include changes in ou tlook that will effect c hoices throughout life and should also include a method for measuring im pact (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 20). Quality based educational programs are meant to encourage awareness and understanding which will then affect attitudes, opinions, values and behaviors (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 29). Organizations that administer heritage education programmi ng are often caught in a trap; by only measuring small, quantitativ e results it makes it appear that those simple things are the only honest results (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 31). However, “the real things, the ways in which environmental education can chan ge someone’s life, are much more subtle and difficult to measure. You can ask questions ab out meaning, about influence, about impacts and look at things that aren ’t visible necessarily ove r a short time, but become apparent over the long term. This is what we have to consider as we look at effectiveness of environmental education (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 31).” Dr. Rick Kool, an environmental educator asks if 80

PAGE 81

“people going to trial or jail is a good indicator of success.” His statement refers to people passionate enough to violate the law to protect their valu es; the same questions can be asked of built-environment education, is the person chained to a house in front of the wrecking ball a measure of success? Another useful tool that measures changes th at have occurred is pre/post testing. This tool helps to determine if a ch ange in values, behavior or at titude occurs after the program (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 33). Measuri ng values shifts is a debated issue; on one hand some programs may only result in a change in value but on the ot her hand is the thought that this process is too subject ive and that “making statements about attitudesmight be more realistic (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 34).” There are eight accepted methods of measuri ng value shifts: questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, review of peers, journals, student art work, a feedback form or an activity known as “taking a stand (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth : 2003, 34-35).” Each of these methods has an outcome indicator that looks at how students respond to the program. Many of those instruments include a pre/post test to show a baseline for measurements. “Taking a stand” is an indicator tailor made to assess children by asking a series of questions and having them stand in groups with signs saying “disagree,” “no opinion,” “s omewhat agree,” and “s trongly agree (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 35).” This activity is also useful as a pre-test to determine what general opinion the students hold before going forw ard with the program. As programs evolve they should develop targets for th ese outcome shifts, aiming to change a certain percentage of student views (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 35). An additional fact to consider is that child ren usually aim to please and are highly subject to peer pressure. If an activity like “taki ng a stand” involves an ope n process in front of 81

PAGE 82

educators and peers versus a s ecret ballot, then they may do as their friends or support the opinion they feel they are supposed to have (D ahl and Reed, 1999). The short term impact on children is also very different from the long te rm, testing a class immediately after a program may solicit one kind of response while evaluating the same gr oup a month later may produce a more accurate, but possibly less favorable response (Dahl and Reed, 1999). A goal of all educational outlets is to shape not only opinion s and attitudes, but behavior as well. It is difficult to determine exactly wh at changes in behavior can be attributed to a certain lesson or program versus what might natu rally occur. Five pr imary activities show a change in behavior: “persuas ion: educating or lobbying other members of the public, consumerism: either changing one’s own consumer habits or encouraging others to do so, political action: action that is aimed at influencing a decision-maker, encouragement: actions to restore, remediate or improvean area, lega l action: action taken through legal avenues (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 36).” In addition to the methods of measuring value shifts, measuring behavior change also includes observations, where the observer “tests for the presence or absence of a number of behavi oural criteria (Thomson, Hoffman, Staniforth: 2003, 37).” One possible method of ongoing evaluation is to provide survey s to preservation professionals or incoming college students in pres ervation and related fields to ask if they were exposed to heritage education earlier in life. This evaluation woul d ask what propelled the subjects to choose their current path and coul d strengthen the argument for heritage education programming. In 1994 the Center for Understanding th e Built Environment sought to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their programming, including a special section on evaluation methodologies. Dr. Kathryn Loncar, of the Univer sity of Missouri at Kansas City’s School of 82

PAGE 83

Education acted as evaluator real ized that there were three inhe rent problems to assessing built environment education: that the “activities and skills may not be identified on state mandated achievement tests,” the activities and target skills vary substantially from individual case to case and locality to locality and that the “very esse nce of alternative assessment means that it is individualized for a particular situation or ev en a particular child (Loncar and Graves: 1994, 23).” To develop an assessment practice that wo uld address all of the foretasted issues, CUBE spent a total of five years working with teacher s and evaluators (Loncar and Graves: 1994, 3). They concluded that the solution was not a single test or list of standardized questions, but a process that would allow educator s to discern outcomes. The prim ary element in this procedure is a pre/post test written specifi cally to test student knowledge be fore and after integrating the built environment into the curriculum (Lon car and Graves: 1994, 3). The study focused primarily on four teacher’s classrooms and the methods they employed for evaluation. One of the educators involved in the study is the Assistant Direct or for a gifted and talented class in Ulysses, Kansas. She requires all teachers and students who participate in any CUBE program to fill out an evaluation. The student evaluation takes the physical form of a box and has a combination of check lists and open ended questions including “products I am proud of” and “I could have made Box City be tter if(Loncar and Graves: 1994, 18).” Portfolio assessment, utilizing a multitude of products like writing, and artwork is another method that can be employed to understand heri tage education’s diverse impacts (Loncar and Graves: 1994, 20). Ginny Graves, Founder and Outr each Director for CUBE believes that “it may be that the most important accomplishment of the built environment education movement is to demonstrate that there are new and exciting wa ys to teach using real-life situations and the community as a primary resource (known as comm unity-referenced curriculum), that traditional 83

PAGE 84

tests and scores do not present the entire or even an accurate picture and that student gains can be measured in other important ways (Loncar and Graves: 1994, 20).” Ginny Graves, in concluding CUBE’s An Evaluation of Built Environment Education in the Curriculum , noted that “[a]ssessing the results of built environment education in the classroom is a constant challenge, need, a nd must. She could not be more on point, but unfortunately evaluation is difficult. Perhaps because measuring success in heritage education programs do not fit any standardized mold, the ne cessity for an effectiv e alternate assessment method is extraordinarily important for the initiative’s future. Society today demands results, especially school systems and pot ential funders, who require a fo rm of measurement that shows improvement in traditional test scores, critical thinking, behavior and even in creativity (Loncar and Graves: 1994, 20). Determining exactly what defines a heritage education program as successful depends completely on the program itself. In general a change in attitude, values and behavior that favors the built environment is the true mark of success. 84

PAGE 85

CHAPTER 9 RESPONSE TO A HERITAGE AT RISK The National Council for Preservation Educa tion (NCPE) was formed in 1978 as a forum for colleges and universities that teach Historic Pres ervation or other allie d fields to share information, develop and enforce standards for preservation curricula, and to encourage the development and improvement of those program s (NCPE, 2005). Twenty years ago, in 1986, NCPE recognized the need to e xpand their purview from preser vation curricula exclusively in higher education to include heri tage education in primary a nd secondary schools (Adler and Downing: 1987, preface). It became evident that the youth “will bear responsibility for policy toward our heritage, and historic preservationists can ask no more of this generation than to be thoughtful and careful custodians of the legacy we have fought so long and hard to save (Adler and Downing: 1987, 20).” In order to addr ess this issue, the Council created an ad hoc Committee on Elementary-Secondary Education to e xplore the ways that heritage education was currently used in the sc hool system and to determine additional ways to integrate the topic into curricula (Adler and Downing: 1987, preface). He ritage educators themselves, members of the appointed committee submitted A Heritage At Risk: A Report On Heritage Education (K-12) to NCPE in 1987 (Adler and Downing: 1987, prefac e). The report addressed the major steps needed to promote preservation education a nd provided the justification to do so. Much has changed since the publication of that document, yet many of the same challenges are as applicable toda y as they were in 1987. Among th e great differences include the institution of state and national standardized test ing. The report suggests that preservation can be taught as a special topic or by in tegrating the subject into existing lessons (Adler and Downing: 1987, 5). There is no longer an “o r;” preservation in mainstream public education can only enter the classroom via a core subject. Educators are increasingly “teaching to the test” as school 85

PAGE 86

system’s require higher scores; this means that in tegrating heritage educat ion into the curriculum is the only way to get the subject into schools (Shull: 1993, 4). The report defines heritage education as: programs [that] introduce the built environment directly into the education process at the elementary-secondary level in arts, humanities, science and vocational course. They focus primarily on older and historic manmade structures and environments, promoting their use in a curr iculum as visual resources for teaching knowledge and skills, as artifact s for the study of a continuum of cultures, and as real and actual places that students of all ages can e xperience, study and evaluate first hand (Adler and Downing: 1987, 4). This definition, and in fact, the document in ge neral utilizes the traditional and now somewhat outdated view of what historic pr eservation is. To the authors of this document, and the council in general, historic preservati on was thought of as the protecti on, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of historic bu ildings; the built environment was the preservationist’s only workspace. To a certain extent, that definition st ill holds true today, but historic preservation has expanded to include other disciplines like: archaeology, folklore, museum administration, economic revitalization, preservati on of cultural intangibles and preservation planning. This expansion allows for additional opportunities to incorporate preservation education into the classroom (University of Mary Washington, 2006). A lack of communication between heritage education programs was ce rtainly an issue as the programs were gaining steam in the late 1980s. This cha llenge still remains; however, improvements have been made. In October of 2006 the first conf erence of A-DEN, the Architecture-Design Education Ne twork was held in Chicago. Formally created in October 2005, A+DEN is the brainchild of the Americ an Architectural Foundation and the Chicago Architecture Foundation (A+DEN, “A +DEN, 2006)”. A+DEN’s mission is to “foster the growth and development of architectur e and design education on a na tional levelto raise youth 86

PAGE 87

awareness about the built environment and advan ce the integration of the design process across the K-12 curriculum (A+DEN, “Mission + Goals,” 2006).” They feel that by educating students about design by integrating it into core subjects it will enable students to bo th think critically and be creative (A+DEN, “A+DEN,” 2006). A+DEN, in addition to serving schools di rectly, is a communications network of organizations who participate in architectural education. As of October 2006 there were thirtyeight organizational members ranging from state Am erican Institute of Architects chapters, to colleges, museums and historical societies. All of the members are listed in an online directory that encourages information sharing through contact information that includes the regional location, specific address and website. The site also allows organiza tions to post different references, books, curricula and websites that other members might find helpful. When addressing why educating students a bout architecture and design is worthwhile, A+DEN mentions three broad categories: le arning process, academic achievement and community + citizenship. Of par ticular importance are the benef its to visual learners, team building and raising awareness for the built envi ronment and community by instilling a sense of stewardship. “By using the built environment as a foundation for learning, architecture + design education further engages educators and stude nts to positively impact the formation and development of their surrounding commun ity (A+DEN, “A+DEN,” 2006).” The committee determined that most herita ge education programs existed under the cloak of nonprofit organizations, including museums a nd local preservation agencies but partnered with groups of teachers and school systems (Adler and Downing: 1987, 5). Their report concluded that the programs manifest themselves in two ways; as resources for educators or as a directly involved entity working in “course s and curriculum (Adler and Downing: 1987, 5).” 87

PAGE 88

Convincing educators of heritage education’s merits was listed as a challenge for those seeking to introduce the subject in to schools. The report cites the need to explain the program’s cost effectiveness, public relations benefits a nd essentially its value for students and teachers alike (Adler and Downing: 1987, 6). Many champions of heritage educ ation face these exact challenges today, compounded by the demands of st andardized testing. In 1987 education was seen as a “highly decentralized collection of independent systems answerable primarily to town officials and a school board that represents the interest of loca l taxpayers (Adler and Downing: 1987, 6).” Now, schools are held accountable not onl y to the school board, but to increasingly concerned parents and directly to the state (Merrow, 2003). Public school teachers are now required to pass the Praxis demons trating their knowledge in a particular area and by asking them to incorporate the built en vironment into their classroom, it is asking them to step outside of their comf ort zone and learn about an additional set of subjects; making them feel confident with the ma terial is an essential element to successful programming (Adler and Downing: 1987, 8). The report lists three ways that educators are exposed to any architectural curriculum: through professional development programs, by noncredit courses offered by preservation related institutions and through colleges or universities (Adler and Downing: 1987, 8). For the most part , these methods are still open avenues, but now in-service training is required for many school systems and preservation organizations are fighting to become listed as accredited instit utions. Other opportunities, like Colonial Williamsburg’s Teachers’ Institute, are offeri ng new methods for teacher training. The widespread use of the internet also allows for increased information sharing and research acquisition. However, if the teach ers and school administration are not onboard with the idea of 88

PAGE 89

heritage education, then nothing can happen, because ultimately the classrooms are theirs (Adler and Downing: 1987, 7). All of the steps listed above lead to the all important implementation process. The idea that the built environment can be used in multiple subjects is truly the only answer to integrating heritage education into the classroom. Lessons must also take their cue from the students and teachers must be able to “ignite and sustain the interest of the twenty to forty individuals who comprise their classesto express a thought in enough imaginative and different ways to catch the commitment of students is as important as being thoroughly versed in a subject (Adler and Downing: 1987, 10).” Heritage ed ucation invites students to view abstract concepts through a more concrete subject: the built e nvironment. “The fact that ar chitecture can be experienced – seen, touched, walked around and throughmakes such topics as geometry or American history more immediate and memorable for some stude nts by reinforcing verbal information with sensory exploration (Adler and Do wning: 1987, 11).” This topic is also the perfect opportunity for group activities. As children develop they often seek to emulate what activities surround them and see there environment as an “intense grid for learning (Adler and Downing: 1987, 11).” Students’ natural curiosity can be easily pair ed with school lessons that integrate their surroundings. Though the report discusses th e likelihood of curri cular emphasis on core subjects remaining the primary approach to education, it st ill holds hope that heritage education can sneak into other areas (Adler and Downing: 1987, 12). The Committee looked at studies showing the subjects in which students were falling behind and found history a nd literature to be two repeat offenders (Adler and Downing: 1987, 13). By using this data, the committee was able to tailor their programming to fit the nationa l educational gap in an effort to help push preservation into 89

PAGE 90

the core curriculum. A strong curriculum in 1987, much like today, was meant to provide every student with “a sense of history, the ability to use verbal and vi sual symbols, understand [-ing] how our most important institutions function, ap preciate[-ing] our penchant for invention and improving human lives (Adler and Downing: 1987, 13).” The next step lies within the heritage education proponent’s responsibility to convince necessary parties that the built environment supports those ideals. The report lists reasons why integrating the built environment into the classroom can be both successful and effective. The Committee hi ghly recommends using heritage education as the link between subjects to allow cross-disciplinary studies, as a tool to promote literacy, and as a vehicle to improve technological and vocationa l skills (Adler and Downing: 1987, 13). Crossdisciplinary studies are becoming more popular in private educati on and are beginning to make their debut in public classrooms, as well (Spies , 2001). This point of entry into the school systems is still valid, and could be argued with more vigor by suggesting that overlapping or complementary studies bolster a student’s subjec t comprehension and could raise test scores. Strengthening language arts is st ill an important avenue for advo cates to pursue, but perhaps the increasingly necessary subject, English as a second language may garner more support. Integrating the built environment into ESL pr ograms would provide a fa miliar, and practical, frame of reference for students to become more fluent in English. One topic the report discusses is the “decentraliz ed approach to heritage education (Adler and Downing: 1987, 15).” According to the Co mmittee, many positive and negative results stem from this method. Among the benefits, are cu stom tailored programs and a passionate group of engaged supporters within th e school community (Adler and Downing: 1987, 15). By engaging different groups of people, it broadens the s upport base. However, the report does introduce a 90

PAGE 91

failure in the system: a severe lack of comm unication between heritage education programs and supporters throughout the country (Adler and Downing: 1987, 15). Programs do not usually interact on a local, regional, stat ewide or national level and cause a “consequent lack of useful information about innovations in curriculum a nd in approaches to developing programs (Adler and Downing: 1987, 15).” This problem is still valid nearly twenty years later. Many heritage education programs, especially in the private sector appear to have a more competitive relationship (Author’s Note). Yet, there is hope on the horizon, through the Center for Understanding the Built Environment’s training sessions and publications there is a broader selection of programming, as we ll as an organization that can place struggling groups in touch with other successful programs. Perhaps th e newest effort to develop a network among institutions and programs is the Architecture and Design Network. One goal the Committee verbalized is the desi re for all heritage education programs to teach environmental literacy; he lping students learn to “read” their surroundings (Adler and Downing: 1987, 20). Though the programs often ask st udents to walk away with the ability to date structures, find additions or alterations and understand style elements, the reality is that higher education is required to get any individual to that point (Adler and Downing: 1987, 20). With today’s standardized testing requirements, integrating such specifics into existing curricula could be especially difficult. Fortunately, NCPE recognized that environmental literacy is but one portion of heritage education and suggested that “students s hould come away from heritage education programs with an unders tanding of the breadth of what can be learned from historic environments (Adler and Downing: 1987, 20).” Essentially, the committee hopes that the built environment will be thought of as a tool, a jump ing off point for other subjects and discussions. 91

PAGE 92

This view is exceptionally important because it shows that learning how to date a building and being able to rattle off its style is an asset, but not th e be-all-and-end-all of heritage education. Times are changing, or they already have. In today’s future focused, mobile, instant gratification lifestyle heritage education is even more important than in years past (Adler and Downing: 1987, 17). Society is “indoctrinated in the belief that what is conceived tomorrow is better than that which exists toda y,” yet there is an inherent flaw in that ideology; civilization was not designed that way (Adler and Downing: 1987, 17). If this continues, the “lack of recognition of the value of past im poverishes the present and places the future at risk (Adler and Downing: 1987, 17).” Society is mobile; people tr avel constantly and move often. The built environment acts as a proverbial safety blanket, serving as a symbol of permanence in an ever changing world (Adler and Down ing: 1987, 17). The average American moves eleven times in their life, and because of the constant motion younger generations lack a true sense of place (Adler and Downing: 1987, 18). Heritage educ ation can aid students by enabling them to recognize character defining featur es wherever they live, from city to suburb (Adler and Downing: 1987, 19). Understanding the process that architects, craftsmen and planners underwent to create environments exemplifies the unspoken trust that exists between the original creator and the future generations who are responsible for the maintenance, protection and most importantly, appreciation of their work (Adler and Downing: 1987, 19). The intera ction between a person and their surroundings is a link to the “personal worth and community pride” that the original designers contributed to society and by viewing the built environment in this manner, it helps to establish a connection between stud ent and the past through architecture’s tangib le link (Adler and Downing: 1987, 19). 92

PAGE 93

The passion about heritage education among its proponents is certainly as strong as it was in 1987. The desire to help children understand their environment and develop appreciations is still at the forefront. However, over the past ni neteen years certain aspects of education have become more restrictive and challenges have ensu ed. Other topics that were not addressed in this document have become forefront issues, like the severe lack of traditional craftsmen and artisans that preservation education could help solve. The ne w buzz words including “pride of place” The potential is still there. 93

PAGE 94

CHAPTER 10 FUTURE RESEARCH Due to the confines of ti me, money and this thesis’ scop e of research several other aspects of heritage education were not inves tigated, yet still deserve to be. The following paragraphs describe additional research topics that would be both beneficial and intriguing for future study. Most preservation education programs are relatively young and have no method of tracking participants’ careers and education choices. Over the course of many years it would be beneficial to determine exactly what impact heritage education programming has on opinions and future choices. To follow a select group of students exposed to built environment education through their lives and determine if the original lessons had any impact on career choice, home purchase, civic involvement or futu re leisure time learning would provide a level of credibility to the heritage education in dustry beyond compare. If given more time it would certainly be wo rthy of investigation to determine what, if any, connection exists between ch ildren’s built environment educa tion and parental opinions on the subject. Theory would suggest that if children discuss what th ey learn with their parents that, consequently the parent’s knowledge level and possibly opinion of pres ervation and the built environment may change. This idea centers on th e transmission of information from child to parent, which may or may not occur in every hous ehold. In order to test this hypothesis surveys could be sent home with students or PTA’s could be i nvolved via interviews and questionnaires. Extensive preand posttesting would need to occur in order to establish how, or if, values shifted after the experience. Another topic which could be developed is the role heritage educati on plays at the higher learning level, and how that has changed over the years. Determining wh at factors created the 94

PAGE 95

environment to start formalized preservation trai ning, and looking at the hist ory of the subject in general could provide a method to not only catalog the past, but predict the future. Researching the popularity of the major and its spread across the country and globe co uld provide yet another glimpse into heritage education at a different level. Forma lized training is now extremely desirable within the workplace, and following wh en undergraduate and graduate degrees became the expected education leve l could be intriguing. Falk and Dierking discuss how lifelong learning is becoming a popular pastime in American culture (Falk and Dierking: 2002, 4-5). As more adults are ch oosing to spend their time learning and traveling, the market for her itage education is expanding into additional demographics. As the baby-boomers find themselves with more time and discretionary income they become perfect candidates for participating in heritage education programming (Falk and Dierking: 2002, 125). Not only co uld elderhostel programming and specific tours be researched and developed, but the demographic themselves should be recognized as a resource. Many elderly people enjoy sharing their wisdom a nd experiences with younger generations, and they should be treated as a resource for children inte rested in their community. The potential for interviews and walking tours with retired people who have lived in the community is great, and is a key to understanding through first-hand st ories how the built-environment has changed over a set of years. By cultivating this relationship, and the relationship between the elderly and organizations that focus on the built environm ent, there is also potential for funding programming through memorial gifts. An additional avenue that deserves exploration is how heritage education, or specifically built environment awareness is addre ssed abroad. Different cultures approach both the preservation and education systems in unique wa ys. In areas rich with historic resources 95

PAGE 96

actively in use, it would be inte resting to determine if there a basic cultu ral understanding that those structures, streets or sites are worthy of retention. How do American heritage education programs compare to those abroad and what could be learned through cooperative sharing are questions that could globa lly strengthen built environment education. 96

PAGE 97

CHAPTER 11 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS Heritage education is slowly finding its wa y into classrooms and museums all over the country. The built environment is one of the mo st accessible and familiar resources to students of all ages, and by formally educating students to its worth and societal contribution they will be more apt to protect and venerate historic elements. By devel oping a working architectural and preservation vocabulary student s will learn to more fully understand their surroundings. Sparking an interest in these subjects can further preservati on practices by producing students who can participate in e ducated discourse about th eir environment at every stage of life. This simple step can lead to a sense of civic engagement and pride of place. One thing is certain, in order to incorporate heritage education into mainstream education, the lessons must meet national and state standards in multiple subj ects in order to fit into the curriculum. The institution of standard ized testing tied to funding has severely limited the number of non-traditional lessons that can be used in the classroom and caused many educators to teach specifically for the test. Integr ating the subject into existing curricula and core subjects provides not only a more responsive educational system but a logical academic model. Through a multi-disciplinary approach students lear n how to relate different subjects to each other and that classroom learning can have re al world applications. Nearly all programs developed for the classroom since 2001 meet national education standards on some level. Technology is changing the face of heritage education programming by introducing far away sites to interested partie s and enabling interaction between organizations and students at the speed of a modem. The wide use of the inte rnet allows for increase d access to lesson plans, activities and resources. As budgets tighten for museums, public schools and non-profits the 97

PAGE 98

ability to travel to important s ites is limited, but through electronic fieldtrips and virtual visits to historic sites, the sites come to the students. Over the past nine years, Stat e Historic Preservation Offices have seen an increased trend toward outreach heritage educat ion programming. Nine out of th e ten responding states have improved their built environment education efforts. The plethora of grants available to fund these programs encourages activity creation. However, most states have still yet to implement an information sharing program to link heritage educa tion organizations within the borders. Linked, informed organizations can create stronger programming by learning from other heritage educators’ experiences. The national and federal involvement in her itage education is undoubtedly important and brings credibility to the subject. The Nati onal Park Service, National Trust for Historic Preservation and other federal le vel organizations have paved th e way for heritage education’s increased acceptance and pioneered revolutionary programming. Perhaps the most valuable role these organizations play is their ample experi ence, understanding, and a willingness to act as a resource for other localities and programs. Not to be overlooked, preserva tion related non-profits appear to be heritage education’s greatest advocates. Many elements contribute to this conclusion: the number of experienced grant writers available in these organizations, th e staff’s passion for the subject matter and their flexibility. These nonprofit enti ties often partner w ith school systems and create their own programming therefore providing th eir expertise and sharing their enthusiasm for the topic. Certainly not every student exposed to bu ilt environment education will become an architect, planner or preservationi st, and that is not the point of heritage education. Heritage education is a valuable tool that can be used to expand the learning environment to empower 98

PAGE 99

students with a sense of place. Through current heritage education programs in classrooms, museums and non-profit outreach organizations an increasing number of students are being introduced to their historic national, state and lo cal assets. Preservationists work diligently to save fragments of a collective history, but if future generations lack the appreciation and understanding required to support these effort s, will all have been for naught? 99

PAGE 100

APPENDIX A MATRIX Program Tie to Specific Site Tie to Neighborhood Relation to Region Integration into Core Subjects Compliance with State/National Guidelines Includes Handson Activities Involves Public Speaking Researching a Historic Home Y Y Y N N N Y Creating A Model of A Settlement N N N N N Y N Jobs My Ancestors Had & What A Fine Place of Employment N N N N N N Y The Column N N N Y N Y N Clues to the Classification of Building Types N N N Y N N N Materials Inside School Y N N Y N Y N What is Your Favorite Place? N N N Y N N N Ordering N N N N N Y N The Seventh General Period is Called the Twentieth Century N N N N N Y N Architectural Structure is Geometric, whether Organic or Mechanical N N N N N Y N Mapping Your Mind N Y Y Y N Y Y Discussing Built N Y Y N N N N 100

PAGE 101

Environment Issues Reading a Building N Y Y Y N Y N Create a Heritage Tour N Y Y Y N Y Y What was Happening Here? N Y Y Y Y Y Y A Story of FreedomCelebrating Our Nation’s Birthday N Y N Y Y Y N Chatham Plantation: Witness to the Civil War Y N Y Y Y N Y Roadside Attractions N Y Y Y Y Y N The M’Clintock House: A Home to the Women’s Rights Movement T N Y Y Y N N Arkansas Architectural Styles N Y Y Y Y Y Y Don’t Fence Me In Y Y N N N Y Y A Day at the Market N N Y N N Y Y A Day in the Life: James Campbell’s Day Y N N Y Y Y Y The Stories These Walls Could Tell N N N Y Y N Y Classroom Restyle N N N Y Y Y Y Sit Right N N N Y Y Y Y Architecture: It’s All N Y Y Y Y Y N 101

PAGE 102

Around You Discovering Hyde Park N Y Y Y Y N N Discovering Ybor City N Y Y Y Y N N If Our House Could Talk Y Y N Y Y N N Oral History Project, PostVisit Activity N N N N N N Y Sherburne House Y Y N N N N Y Winn House Model Y Y Y N N Y N 102

PAGE 103

Program Yields a Tangible Product Integrates Primary Sources Uses Modern Technology Uses Outside Presenters Involves a Fieldtrip Involves Groupwork Classroom Based Activity Researching a Historic Home Y Y N N Y Y Y Creating A Model of A Settlement Y N N N N Y Y Jobs My Ancestors Had & What A Fine Place of Employment Y Y Y Y Y N N The Column Y N N N N N Y Clues to the Classification of Building Types N N N N N N Y Materials Inside School N Y N N Y N Y What is Your Favorite Place? Y N N N N N Y Ordering Y N N N N N Y The Seventh General Period is Called the Twentieth Century Y N N N N N Y Architectural Structure is Geometric, whether Organic or Mechanical Y N N N N N Y Mapping Your Mind Y Y N N N Y Y Discussing Built Environment Issues N N N N N N Y Reading a Y N N N Y Y Y 103

PAGE 104

Building Create a Heritage Tour N Y N Y Y Y Y What was Happening Here? Y Y Y Y N P N A Story of FreedomCelebrating Our Nation’s Birthday Y Y N N N Y Y Chatham Plantation: Witness to the Civil War N Y N N N N Y Roadside Attractions Y N N N N Y Y The M’Clintock House: A Home to the Women’s Rights Movement Y Y N N N N Y Arkansas Architectural Styles Y N N Y N Y Y Don’t Fence Me In Y Y N N P Y Y A Day at the Market N Y N N P Y Y A Day in the Life: James Campbell’s Day N Y N EFT EFT Y Y The Stories These Walls Could Tell N N N N N Y Y Classroom Restyle Y Y Y N P Y Y Sit Right Y N Y N N Y Y Architecture: It’s All Around You Y Y N N N N Y Discovering Hyde Park N N N N Y N N 104

PAGE 105

Discovering Ybor City N N N N Y N N If Our House Could Talk N Y Y N N N Y Oral History Project, PostVisit Activity Y Y N Y P N N Sherburne House Y Y N N Y N N Winn House Model Y N N N Y Y N 105

PAGE 106

Program Focus on Architecture or Design Writing Element Ongoing Unit Includes Community Interaction Researching a Historic Home Y Y Y Y Creating a Model of Settlement Y N N N Jobs My Ancestors Had & What A Fine Place of Employment Y N N N The Column N Y N Y Clues to the Cl assification of Building Types Y N N N Materials Inside School Y Y N N What is Your Favorite Place? Y Y N N Ordering Y Y N N The Seventh General Period is Called the Twentieth Century Y N N N Architectural Structure is Geometric, whether Organic or Mechanical Y Y N N Mapping Your Mind Y N N Y Discussing Built Environment Issues Y Y P Y Reading a Building Y Y Y Y Create a Heritage Tour N Y Y Y What was Happening Here? N Y Y Y A Story of FreedomCelebrating Our Nation’s Birthday N Y N Y Chatham Plantation: Witness to the Civil War N Y N N Roadside Attractions Y N N N The M’Clintock House: A Home to the Women’s Rights Movement N N N N Arkansas Architectural Styles Y Y Y Y Don’t Fence Me In N Y N N A Day at the Market N N N N A Day in the Life: James Campbell’s Day N Y N N The Stories These Walls Could Tell N N Y Y Classroom Restyle N Y Y N Sit Right Y Y Y N Architecture: It’s All Around You Y N N N 106

PAGE 107

Discovering Hyde Park Y N N Y Discovering Ybor City Y Y N Y If Our House Could Talk Y Y N Y Oral History Project N Y N Y Sherburne House N Y N N Winn House Model Y N N N 107

PAGE 108

APPENDIX B ADVENTURES IN ACKITECTURE! 108

PAGE 109

Adventures in ACKitecture! A kid-friendly introduction to reading and appreciating historic buildings on Nantucket ItÂ’s All Around You!

PAGE 110

Nantucket has a unique built environment that can serve as the perfect classroom to allow children to gain an appreciation for historic architecture. The task of helping a new generation understand and appreciate historic preservation may sound daunting, but with guidance from you and support from community-minded organizations, these efforts will be successful. You will be pleasantly surprised by how attuned your children become to their surroundings. Go ahead, open the door to preservation. Page 2 For the Parents: For the Kids: Take a look around! You are surrounded by history! More than three hundred years worth of kids have walked around Nantucket and lived in the houses you see. Nantucket is special because it has been home to sea captains, pioneers in the womenÂ’s movement , and even to some celebrities. These people have all left their mark on the Island, and the most noticeable way is the buildings they built. So, look up and look down. Look up close and from far away. There is a lot to see if you are willing to find it! Keep your eyes open and think about the people who could have lived in these places! Fun Fact!!! Smile! Did you know that moulding (decorative trim) can look like teeth? ItÂ’s even called dental moulding!

PAGE 111

Page 3 Building Blocks: Basic Shapes on Nantucket Buildings may look complicated but if you look really hard youÂ’ll see that there are four basic shapes that make up any building. Triangles, rectangles, semi-circles and quarter-circles make up almost any house! Look at windows, roof lines, porches and the overall buildings, too! Can you find examples of these shapes in buildings on Main Street? __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ * Need a hint? Look above doors! ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ * Need a hint? Look at doors and windows! _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ *Hint: Look at the roof! Watch Out! This might be tricky! __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ *Hint: Look around the roof near the chimney! !

PAGE 112

Page 4 What is it and Why is it There? As youÂ’ve been wandering around you have probably noticed some things youÂ’ve never seen before. Chances are you are wondering what they are and why they are here. Guess what? ItÂ’s time to find out! Roofwalk Some people call this a widowÂ’s walk, but itÂ’s really a roofwalk . If there was a fire in the building then people would climb up to the roofwalk and try to put out the fire. ThatÂ’s why theyÂ’re usually around chimneys, because thatÂ’s where the fires would start! Bullseye Glass Glass was very expensive in the 18th century (the 1700s) and it was made by blowing air into a tube attached to a ball of hot pliable glass. The bullseye is the part that was left when the pontil, or tube, was taken away from the glass. Bullseye glass was not the best piece of glass, but it still let light in, and was reasonably priced. Cupola (Coop-o-la) A cupola is a miniature building that sits on the roof, usually in the center, and shows that the building is important. Cupolas were decorative, and made the building stand out but could also be used to look out over the surrounding area.

PAGE 113

Page 5 Who Lives Where? Can you match the resident* to their house? Read about the person and see if you can figure out who lives in what house. Want to see if youÂ’re right? Look at the answers on the bottom! * These people arenÂ’t real, theyÂ’re just examples!* 1. Most people on Nantucket throughout the 18th Century practiced Quakerism a form of religion. These Quakers believed in keeping things simple, including their houses! They liked having clean lines and exteriors without a lot of decoration. 2. Capt. Buckley is in charge of a whaling ship in the early 1800s. He goes out on long voyages and brings back exotic gifts for his family. The captain is proud of his hard work and likes to let people know how successful he is by having a fancy house. 3. Mr. Stanton is in charge of one of the banks in Town and likes to keep up with the latest house styles. He is fascinated by all the new technology available to buildings in the 1880s, like indoor plumbing and electricity. 4. Kelsey is in third grade and she likes to watch T.V. and play with her dog Maddie but her favorite thing to do is to walk to town and get ice cream. 5. Mrs. Price is a nurse at the Cottage Hospital. She thinks that her 1920s house is spectacular! Her favorite features are the porch (to talk with her neighbors) and the wide stretches of windows. This bungalow is just the right size for she and her husband. D. A. B. C. E. Answer Key: 1= D, 2=E, 3=A, 4=Tricky...Kelsey could live in ANY of these houses! People Today live in old houses all the time! , 5=C

PAGE 114

Page 6 Which Came First? How do you Know? There are a lot of historic buildings on Nantucket. Have you ever wondered just how old those places are? Figuring out when a building was constructed is like solving a mystery. In order to find the answer you have to look for clues. Clues come in many forms, they could be the shape of the roofline or even where the chimneys are! You have to pay close attention to all of the hints in order to solve the puzzle! Here is a helpful guide that shows a few ways to look at a building and lean how old it is. Look at the Roof Gable with a steep slope Gable with a very shallow pitch Gable (triangle side) facing the street Lots of Combined Rooflines WhereÂ’s the Chimney? In or Near the Middle On the end, but inside the house Where is the front door? To the side In the center of the building Older Newer On the gable end Off Center and under a Porch

PAGE 115

Time to try! Page 7 Find these buildings on Main Street and use the guide on the other page to see if you can order the buildings from oldest to newest! B. East Brick, 93 Main Street A. 73 Main Street Roof: _______________________________ Chimney: _____________________________ Entry: ________________________________ Roof: _______________________________ Chimney: _____________________________ Entry: ________________________________ Roof: _______________________________ Chimney: _____________________________ Entry: ________________________________ C. Greek Revival, 92 Main Street Oldest Newest _____________ _______________ ______________ Answer Key: Oldest to Newest, B, C, A

PAGE 116

Page 8 Then & Now Here are some historic photographs of buildings in downtown Nantucket. Can you find these buildings now? How have they changed? Is anything the same? Look for these building on Main Street Similarities: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Differences: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ c. 1920s Look for these building near 34 Centre Street Similarities: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Differences: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ c. 1900s Look for this building at 78 Main Street Similarities: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Differences: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ c. 1890s Photo Courtesy of Nantucket Historical Association Photo Courtesy of Nantucket Historical Association Photo Courtesy of Nantucket Historical Association

PAGE 117

Draw your favorite building on Nantucket! Page 9

PAGE 118

Thanks for using Adventures in ACKitecture. If youÂ’re interested in learning more about architecture on the Island, then visit one of the many history oriented organizations: Maria Mitchell Association: 4 Vestal Street 508-228-9198 www.mmo.org Nantucket Historical Association: 15 Broad Street 508-228-1894 www.nha.org Nantucket Preservation Trust: 2 Union Street 508-228-1387 www.nantucketpreservation.org Preservation Institute: Nantucket: 11 Centre Street 508-228-2429 www.dcp.ufl.edu/hp/PINantucket/ Many of these organizations offer specialized programs to educate children about the IslandÂ’s history, in addition to its built and natural resources. For more information on how Nantucke t maintains its historic character Historic District Commission: 37 Washington Street 508-228-7231 www.nantucket-ma.gov/departments/hdc/hdc.html *** Prepared by Kerry A. Vautrot Preservation Institute: Nantucket Summer 2006

PAGE 119

APPENDIX C BUILDING DETECTIVES 119

PAGE 120

Pre-Camp Camper Evaluation We are so excited to have you in Building Detectives Camp! In order to make the camp the best we can (and make sure you don’t get bored!) we woul d like you to please fill out these questions. Don’t worry if you don’t know the answers, you will soon! Thanks! We can’t wait to see you in camp! Do you know what historic preser vation is? (Please Circle) Yes No If you do know, what is it? ________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Do you think that historic buildings should be saved? (P lease Circle) Absolutely! Yes! No! No way! How old does a building have to be before you think it’s old? ____________________________ Can older buildings tell you anything special? ________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ What is one thing you want to learn during this camp? __________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ What do you want to be when you grow up? (it’s okay to say you don’t know!) ______________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 120

PAGE 121

Building Detectives 2007 DAY 1 Objectives: To understand the definition of historic preservation To analyze Strawbery Banke’s re lationship with preservation To familiarize campers with the site To acquaint campers with each other Staff Required: Preservationist Education Coordinator Intern/Museum Teacher Materials: Historic Building Photos Clipboards & pencils Worksheets Example HSRs Prep Work: Building Worksheets Module 1: Introduction to Camp Time: 9:00-10:00 Activity: Three pictures of historic buildings from outside of Portsmouth will be placed on separate tables and children, in groups of four, will list (prompted by an adult) what they think the building is, how it wa s used, who used it and where they think it is. Each group will take turns presenting their ideas to the other campers. The lead will then solicit impressions as to what historic preser vation is and explain the concept to the campers. Snack 10:00-10:30 Module 2: Strawbery Banke: Behind the Scenes Time: 10:30-11:30 Activity: The group will go on a behind the scen es tour of Strawbery Banke to discover how buildings can teach about daily life in the past by putting history into the context in which it was created, and how the preservationist is the key to the interpretation of the exhibit buildings. Campers will tour attics and basements and visit some unrestored buildings. While on the tour, the group will be use a worksheet to become cognizant of what bui ldings can tell about their residents. Walsh House-Attic Sherburne TBA Closed Rooms 121

PAGE 122

Jackson Yeaton Cotton Tenant Lunch: 11:30-12:00 Module 3: Back to the Drawing Board! Time: 12:00-12:30 Activity: Children will learn architectural styles and vocabulary while increasing their comfort level with the group. Module 4: Sherburne Model Time: 12:30-1:30 Activity: The group will cons truct a wooden model of 17 th century Sherburne House to see timber framing in action. While building the model the group will have to work as a team to determine how the pieces fit together and will therefore increase their teamwork abilities. Break: 1:30-2:00 Module 5: Historic Structures Report Introduction Time: 2:00-3:00 Activity: Students will be introduc ed to the concept of HSRs and view examples of Historic Structures Reports. They will be told what their subject will be and will brainstorm to create an outline for their report. 122

PAGE 123

DAY 2 Objectives: Understand the importance of measured drawings Learn how to measure buildings Learn to recognize characte r defining features Learn to recognize different materials Staff Required: Preservationist Education Coordinator Intern/Museum Teacher Materials: Example Measured Drawings Tape Measure Rulers Graph Paper Clipboards Interior Inventory Worksheet Architectural Scales Prep Work: Drawings of classroom and Yeaton Set datum line List of drawings for each child Module 6 Introduction to Measured Drawing Time: 9:00-10:00 Activity: Explain why accurate measured drawi ngs are important and show examples of the different types (interior/exte rior elevations, floorplans and sections). The kids will practice reading measuring tapes and will measure the classroom wall using running dimensions. Provide each stude nt with a drawing of the wall and demonstrate on the board where measurem ents should be taken (door frames, windows, etc.). Snack 10:00-10:30 Module 7 Fieldwork Part I, Measuring Time: 10:30-11:30 Activity: Each group will be given a tape meas ure, clipboard, graph paper and sketch of their wall. Campers should take horizont al measurements of their wall, switching between acting as recorder, reader and hol der. Explain the importance of a datum line and allow the kids to move on to vert ical measurements if time allows. Make sure that an adult (with stepstool) is av ailable to help with measurements above the datum. 123

PAGE 124

Lunch: 11:30-12:00 Module 8: Comprehensive Tour of Yeaton and Winn Time: 12:00-1:00 Activity: Students will explore Yeaton and it s near twin Winn and fill out the interior assessment survey by writing down importa nt features (like lighting, wallpaper, molding, materials, window types). During this survey they will also learn to recognize certain conservation issues, like flaking paint and water damage. Break: 1:00-1:30 Module 7 (cont) Fieldwork Part II, Measuring Time: 1:30-2:30 Activity: Students will finish their measurements and begi n taking photographs of their room showing overall views and details of key elements. Module 9: Assigning Drawings Time: 2:30-3:00 Activity: Each group will be assigned a set of drawings. Dependant on enrollment size drawings could include: four interior elevations, a floorplan, window detail, mantle detail, door detail, mouldi ng detail and closet elevations. 124

PAGE 125

DAY 3 Objectives: To research using primary documents Learn how to draw architecturally to scale Understand the thought process involved in choosing a preservation treatment Staff Required: Preservationist Education Coordinator Intern/Museum Teacher Materials: Example Measured Drawings Rulers Graph Paper Clipboards Cameras Architectural Scales Prep Work: Pull city directories, oral histories, and excerpts from the original HSR Module 10: Library Research Time: 9:00-10:00 Activity: Students will use the library to rese arch Yeaton, and learn as much as they can about their room. Campers and leaders will use city directories, oral histories and inventories among other resources, to learn about past residents. They will also begin to research materials pr esent in the room to learn mo re about its evolution. Snack 10:00-10:30 Module 10 (cont.): Research & Documentation, Part II Time: 10:30-11:30 Activity: Students will continue to use the library as well as the Internet to research their room. They should also begin writing the first draft of their section for the HSR. Meanwhile, each group will take turns going back to Yeaton to finish photographing, measuring and documenting thei r objects to help learn more about them and develop a more accurate HSR. Lunch 11:30-12:00 Module 11: Warner House Tour Time: 12:00-1:30 Activity: The group will visit the Warner Hous e on Congress Street to receive a behind-thescenes tour showing the third floor and cupola. The campers will also learn about 125

PAGE 126

paint analysis and be introduced to sm alting and the decision to restore vs. rehabilitate. Break 1:30-2:00 Module 12: Measured Drawing, Part I Time: 2:00-3:00 Activity: Students will learn about scaling and how to use an architectural scale. As a group they will decide what scale to use for their drawings and begin practicing how to draw different shapes and sizes. They will also learn how to show certain elements like windows, doors, sl oping floors and molding. 126

PAGE 127

DAY 4 Objectives: To hone measured drawing skills To strengthen technical writing abilities To recognize the way changes in technology effect building practices Staff Required: Preservationist Education Coordinator Intern/Museum Teacher Preservation Carpenter Materials: Graph Paper Pencils Architectural Scales Computers and/or Notebook Paper Pictures (to choose to integrate into report) Module 13: HSR, Part I Time: 9:00-10:00 Activity: Students will begin writing about the room by describing its elements, history and condition. Snack 10:00-10:30 Module 14: Tools of the Trade Time: 10:30-11:30 Activity: Accompanied by preservation carpenter, Mason McBride, campers will visit Lowd House to see tools framers and woodworkers used to construct buildings. They will then travel to Winn to see how preservationist s can date timber members based on the markings tools leave behind. Lunch 11:30-12:00 Module 12: Measured Drawing, Part II Time: 12:00-1:30 Activity: Students will work on thei r individual measured drawings. Break 1:30-2:00 Module 13: Finalize HSR, Part II Time: 2:00-3:00 Activity: Campers will finish writing text for the HSR and de termine what pictures they want to integrate into the report. 127

PAGE 128

DAY 5 Objectives: To complete the HSR To reinforce architectural vocabulary with the scavenger hunt To establish sense of place th rough the South End walking tour To become aware of technologi cal advances in the trade Staff Required: Preservationist Education Coordinator Intern/Museum Teacher Materials: Snacks for reception Binding Machine Graph Paper Architectural Scales Computer with AutoCAD Prep Work: Edit and organize the HSR Develop South End walking tour Set up projector for AutoCAD Module 12: Measured Drawings, Part III Time: 9:00-10:00 Activity: Campers will complete their measured drawings. Students who have finished the drawings can help create a cover page, table of contents and acknowledgment page. 10:00-10:30 Snack Module 13: Report Organization / Preparation Time: 10:30-11:30 Activity: Students will organize, copy and bind the report. Lunch: 11:30-12:00 Module 15: Scavenger Hunt / South End Tour Time: 12:00-1:00 Activity: The group will be divided in two, with one group remaining onsite and participating in a woodworking/architectur al scavenger hunt a nd the other taking a walking tour of the South End to see how SBM fits into its context. Module 16: Technology in Preservation Time: 1:00-1:30 Activity: Campers will have the opportunity to view and test AutoCAD 128

PAGE 129

Break: 1:30-2:00 Module 17: Reception Prep Time: 2:00-2:30 Activity: Students will view their comp leted HSRs and set up for the reception. Finale: Presentation and Reception Time: 2:00-3:00 Activity: The campers will present their research and HSR to their family and friends as well as SBM’s staff. Following the presentation, students will have the opportunity to show their families where th ey have worked all week. Attendees will have the opportunity to view the HSR and enjoy refreshments. The HSR will be kept at the Museum’s library for future research and expansion. 129

PAGE 130

Ongoing UnitNew Hampshire Proficiency Standards Building Detectives as an ongoing unit partnering with a local school has the potential to meet the following New Ha mpshire state proficiency standards i : E nglish/Language Arts: LA – 2.2.10.1 – Enhance their writing by using a variety of sources to provide background information, supporting details, and models of good writing. LA – 2.2.10.2 – Use a variety of techniques to generate , draft, revise, edit, and publish texts. LA – 2.2.10.3 – Understand and employ the elements of effective writing including purpose, topic development, organization, details , sentence structur e, paragraphing, vocabulary, word choice, tone and style. LA – 2.2.10.8 Edit to adjust their writing for a particular audience and to polish the text so that a reader can better understand the intended meaning. LA – 2.2.10.10 Write effectively for public audiences. Mathematics: MA 1.1.10.1 Determine, collect and organize the rele vant data needed to solve real-world problems. MA – 1.1.10.2 Determine the reasonableness of so lutions to real-world problems. MA – 1.1.10.3 Use technology whenever appropriate to solve real-world problems which require strategies pr eviously learned. MA – 1.1.10.4 Use technology whenever appropriate to solve problems related to basic living skills including, but not limited to, pers onal finances, wages, banking and credit, home improvement problems, measurem ent, taxes, business situations, purchasing, and transportation. MA – 1.1.10.5 Apply problem solving strategies to so lve problems in the natural and social sciences and in pure mathematics MA – 1.1.10.6 Choose the appropriate technology need ed to solve a real-world problem. MA – 1.1.10.7 Translate results of a computation into solutions that fit the real-world problem (for example, when a computation shows that one needs 3.2 gallons of paint to paint a room, how much paint do you buy?). MA1.1.10.8 Determine if the solution of a r eal-world problem is reasonable. MA 4.1.10.4 Use compass and straightedge, mani pulatives, and technology to explore geometric constructions. MA 4.1.10.12 Use technology, manipulatives, and/or coordinate geometry to deduce and explain the properties of and the re lationships among geometric figures. MA 4.2.10.4 Use manipulatives and computer gra phics to enhance spatial sense and to increase understanding of geometry and to explore its connections to other parts of mathematics, science, and art. MA 4.3.10.1 Explore linear and area measures of two dimensional figures. MA 4.3.10.2 Explore the volume, surface area and linear measures of three dimensional figures. MA 4.3.10.3 Apply the Pythagorean Theorem to real-world situations. MA 4.3.10.4 Enhance, extend, apply, and formaliz e understandings and applications of measurement including strategies for dete rmining perimeters, areas, and volumes by using formulas, approximations, and computer geometry programs. i All Proficiency Standards directly quoted from New Hampshire Educator s Online, accessed 21 October 2006, available from http://www.nheon.org/frameworks/proficiencies.php?sid=1&cid=2&cidn=2&aid=10. Internet. 130

PAGE 131

MA 4.3.10.6 Choose appropriate techniques and tool s to measure quantities in order to achieve specified degrees of precision, accuracy, and error (or tolerance) of measurement. MA 4.3.10.7 Choose an appropriate unit of measur e and use appropriate formulas to find perimeter and circumference, area of polygons and circles, the volume and surface area of selected solids, and the measure of angles. MA 4.3.10.8 Choose appropriate units for m easuring size, rates, and energy. MA 4.3.10.9 Select and use appropriate formulas and procedures to determine a measure when a direct measurement is not available. MA 4.3.10.10 Understand and apply measurement in career based contexts and in interdisciplinary situations. MA 4.3.10.11 Identify and use appropriate units of measurement. MA 4.3.10.12 Approximate areas of irregul ar shapes drawn on a grid. MA 4.3.10.13 Convert commonly used measurements to equivalent ones within a measurement system. MA 4.3.10.14 Apply the formulas for and choose an appropriate unit of measurement to find the linear and area measures associated with two dimensional figures and the volume and surface area of three dimensional figures. MA 4.3.10.15 Apply the Pythagorean theorem to problem solving situations. MA 4.3.10.16 Select an appropriate procedure to determine a measure when a direct measurement cannot be made. MA 4.3.10.17 Use ratio and proportion to find the m easure of all sides of similar figures. Science SC 2.5.10.1 Describe immediate and long-term consequences of various alternative solutions for scienceand/or technology-related issues , e.g. natural catastrophes, interactions o f populations , resources and environment, health and disease. Social Studies/History SS – 4.16.6.1 Locate events in time—past, present, and future—by using basic chronological concepts including calendars, elapsed time, and story sequence (beginning, middle, end). SS – 4.16.6.2 Construct time lines of events of significant historical events in their community, state, and nation. SS – 4.16.6.5 Examine historical data related to id eas, events, and people from a given timeframe in order to reconstruct a chrono logy and identify examples of cause and effect. SS – 4.16.6.6 Demonstrate an understanding that people, artifacts and documents represent links to the past and that they are sources of data from wh ich historical accounts are constructed. SS – 4.16.6.7 Examine historical documents, artifacts, and other materials and classify them as primary or secondary sources of historical data. SS – 4.16.6.8 Understand the significance of the past to themselves and society. SS – 4.16.6.9 Display historical perspective by de scribing the past through the eyes and experiences of those who were there, as related through their memories, literature, diaries, letters, debates, ar ts, maps and artifacts. SS – 4.16.6.12 Frame useful questions in order to obtain, examine, organize, evaluate, and interpret historical information. 131

PAGE 132

SS – 4.14.4.13 Use basic research skills to investigate and prepare a report on a historical person or event. SS 4.17.10.3 Demonstrate an understanding of major t opics in the study of the Colonial Era (1565-1776) including characte ristics of English colonies in North America; differences among Spanish, Portuguese, Fr ench, and English colonies in the Americas; the interaction of Native Amer ican, black, and col onial cultures; and the planting and maturing of new societies. SS 4.17.10.4 Demonstrate an understanding of major t opics in the study of the Revolutionary Era (1763-1787) including the causes of th e Revolution; the establishment of government through the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the C ontinental Congress; the Revolutionary War; the consequences of the Revolution; and the Northwest Ordinance. SS 4.17.10.5 Demonstrate an understanding of major topics in the study of the Building of Our Nation (1783-1820) including the fo rmation of our national government through the creation and ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; conflicting views of Hamilton and Jeffers on; origins of the two-party system; impact of the French Revolution; devel oping ideas of equality, independence, and civic virtue; the emerging role of pres idential leadership; the beginnings of judicial review; and the implications of the War of 1812. SS 4.17.10.9 Discuss the contributions of New Hamp shire to United States history from 1600 through 1877 including the economic devel opment of the colonies; Revolutionary War; creation and ratification of the United States Constitution; Industrial Revolution; abolitionist and other 19th century reform movements; creation of the Republican Party; and Civil War. SS 4.17.10.10 Discuss the impact on New Hampshire and its communities of major events and developments in United States hi story from 1600 through 1877 including the settlement of America; creation of th e United States; War of 1812; Industrial Revolution; westward migra tion; expansion of the ra ilroads; and Civil War. SS 4.18.10.9 Discuss the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the world including its social and economic consequences and its effect on politics and culture. SS 4.18.10.13 Discuss the significance of major cultural, economic, and political developments in the 20th century including the development and internationalization of art, music, a nd literature; the worldwide quest for democracy, political freedom, and human rights; the making of the European community of nations; the growth of inte rnational trade; and new approaches to worldwide cooperation and interdependence. Visual Arts AV 4.4.12.2 Analyze relationships among works of ar t in terms of history, aesthetics, and culture, using their observations to inform their own art making. AV 4.4.12.3 Identify and visit New Hampshire arts exhibitions and re port their findings. AV 4.4.12.4 -Understand various critical models of in terpreting works from several historical periods and cultures. 132

PAGE 133

AV 4.4.12.5 Analyze common characte ristics of visual arts evident across time and among cultural/ethnic groups to fo rmulate analyses, evaluations , and interpretations of meaning AV 4.5.12. 6 Analyze and interpret art works identifying relationships among form, context and purposes 133

PAGE 134

Post-Camp Camper Evaluation Congratulations on completing the Building Detectives program! You are now a true Jr. Preservationist! In order to learn how to ma ke this camp better for the future we would appreciate it if you answered the following questions for us: Do you think you have a better understanding of what historic preservation is than before the camp? _______________________________________________________________________ What is it? ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Should historic buildings be saved or protected? ______________________________________ Why or Why not? ______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Do you remember what architectural style is the Winn House (the pink building connected to Yeaton)? _____________________________________________________________________ What was your favor ite activ ity? __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ What was your least favorite activity? _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Name one thing you learned during camp. __________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 134

PAGE 135

Post-Camp Parent Evaluation To the Parents: In an effort to better our future programming we request that you answer the following questions and return this document to us. We appreciate your cooperation. Was there any subject your child was mo re excited about than the others? __________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Did your child return home after camp eag er to discuss the day’s activities? ________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Did you learn anything about architecture, hist oric preservation or Strawbery Banke through your child? ___________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Does your child view buildings differently now? How so? _____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Were there any activities in which your child expressed disappointment? __________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Would you send your child back to a Strawbery Banke camp? ___________________________ If not, please explain. ____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 135

PAGE 136

APPENDIX D CHILDRENS’ LITERATURE RESOURCE LIST Arches to Zigzags Michael Crosbie, 2000 ISBN: 0-8109-4278-6 Architects Make Zigzags National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1986 ISBN: 0-89133-121-2 Architecture Colors Michael Crosbie and Steve Rosenthal, 1993 ISBN: 089133-212-X Architecture Counts Michael Crosbie and Steve Rosenthal, 1993 ISBN: 089133-213-8 Architecture Shapes Michael Crosbie and Steve Rosenthal, 1993 ISBN: 089133-211-1 Frank Lloyd Wright for Kids Kathleen Thorne-Thomsen, 1994 ISBN: 1-55652-207X Houses and Homes Carol Bower, 1990 ISBN: 0-86020-191-0 I Can Be An Architect Susan Clinton, 1986 ISBN: 0-516-41890-4 If Our House Could Talk Robin Robson Gonzalez, 2003 ISBN: 0-9745266-0-6+ If Our Hotel Could Talk Robin Robson Gonzalez, 2005 ISBN: 0-9745266-1-4 Island Boy Barbara Cooney, 1991 ISBN: 0-1405-0756-6 136

PAGE 137

My House Has Stars Megan McDonald, 2001 ISBN: 0-5310-7181-2 Old House, New House: A Child’s Explor ation of American Architectural Styles Michael Gaughenbaugh and Herbert Camburn, 1993 ISBN: 0-89133-236-7 Roberto, the Insect Architect Nina Laden, 2000 ISBN: 0-8118-2465-9 The Borning Room Paul Fleischman, 1991 ISBN: 0-7857-0798-0 The House on Maple Street Bonnie Pryor, 1992 ISBN: 0-6881-2031-8 The Little House Virginia Burton, 1969 ISBN: 0-395-18156-9 Two Bad Ants Chris Van Allsburg, 1988 ISBN: 0-3954-8668-8 Up Goes the Skyscraper Gail Gibbons, 1986 ISBN: 0-02-736780-0 Uptown Bryan Collier, 2000 ISBN: 08-0505-7275 What It Feels Like To Be A Building Forrest Wilson, 1988 ISBN: 0-89133-147-6 137

PAGE 138

REFERENCES CITED Abhau, Marcy. Architecture in Education: A Resource of Imaginative Ideas and Tested Activities . Philadelphia, PA: Foundation for Architecture, 1996. Adler, Emma and Antoinette Downing, co-chairs. A Heritage At Risk: A Report on Heritage Education (K-12) . Burlington, VT: University of Vermont [for the National Council on Preservation Education], 1987. Architecture and Design Education Networ k. “A+DEN.” Chicago, IL: A+DEN. 2006, 12 September 2006; . Internet. Architecture and Design Education Network. “Mi ssion + Goals.” Chicago, IL: A+DEN. 2006, 12 September 2006; .Internet. Arts & Entertainment Television Networks. 06/2007 Grant Recipients.” New York, NY: The History Channel. 2006, 15 October 2006; . Internet. Arts & Entertainment Television Networks. “Pre servation Organizations.” New York, NY: The History Channel. 2006, 15 October 2006; . Internet. Arts & Entertainment Television Networks. Save Our History Educators Manual . New York, NY: The History Channel. 2004, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “About Us,” New Yor k, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “Curriculum.” New Yor k, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “Education and the Built Environment.” New York, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael.“Frequently Asked Questio ns.” New York, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “Have your programs been proven successful?.” New York, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. 138

PAGE 139

Bettencourt, Michael. “Home.” New York, NY : The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “How We Started.” Ne w York, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; available from . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “Our Work.” New York, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “Salvadori On-Site Progr am.” New York, NY: The Salvadori Center. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Bettencourt, Michael. “School Programs.” Ne w York, NY: The Salvadori Center, 2006, 27 August 2006;. Internet. Boland, Beth. “When Did History Happen.” CRM 16, no. 2 (1992): 1-3 Bond, Lloyd. “Teaching to the Test.” Stanfor d, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2006, 30 September 2006; . Internet. Brumley, John H. “Theme 5, Ancient Shelter: Comi ng in from the Cold.” Helena, MT: Montana Historical Society. 3 October 2006; . Internet. Bush, George W. interview by Margaret Wa lker, 29 March 2000, interview transcript, News Hour with Jim Lehrer “Bush Literacy Plan,” Washington, DC: Public Broadcasting Corporation, 30 September 2006; . Internet. Butler, Jeanne F. “Get Them While Th ey’re Young: New Program Targets Gradeschools to Promote Architecture and Design.” The AIA Journal of Architecture (July 2006): 11. City of Austin Planning Department. “Nei ghborhood Planning Glossary.” Austin City Connection. 2001, 19 October 2006; . Internet. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. “Brickmake r Buid-Up.” Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2006, 1 September 2006; . Internet. 139

PAGE 140

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Educational Re source Center.” Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg. 2006, 29 September 2006; . Internet. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. “Preparing fo r Your Visit.” Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg. 2006, 15 September 2006; . Internet. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. “That the Futu re May Learn from the Past.” Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg. 2006, 29 September 2006; . Internet. Coppola, Bekki. Summer Programs.” Port smouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2006, 19 September 2006; . Internet. Coppola, Bekki. “School Programs.” Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2000, 6 September 2006; . Internet. Coppola, Bekki. “Time Travel Workshops.” Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2000, 6 September 2006; . Internet. Dahl, Rene Fukuhara, and Jane Reed. “The Challenges of Measuring the Impact of Recreation Programs on Youth Resiliency: Designing culturally sensitive and age-appropriate evaluation instruments.” S acramento, CA: California Park & Recreation Society. 1999, 16 October 2006; . Internet. Department of Historic Preservation. “About the Department,” Fr edericksburg, VA: University of Mary Washington. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. Educational Testing Service. “State Requirements. ” Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 2006, 22 October 2006; . Internet. Education World. “National Standards.” Wallingf ord, CT: Education World. 2006, 30 September 2006; . Internet. Education World. “State Standards.” Wallingford, CT: Education World. 2006, 30 September 2006; . Internet. Falk, John H., and Lynn D. Dierking. Lessons Without Limit . Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 2002. 140

PAGE 141

Gonzalez, Robin Robson. Discovering Hyde Park. Tampa, FL: Tampa Preservation Inc., 1995. Gonzalez, Robin Robson. Discovering Ybor City . Tampa, FL: Tampa Preservation Inc., 1994. Gonzalez, Robin Robson. If Our Hotel Could Talk. Tampa, FL: Tampa Preservation Inc., 2005. Gonzalez, Robin Robson. If Our House Could Talk . Tampa, FL: Tampa Preservation Inc., 2003. Graves, Ginny. “Box City is 35.” Prairie Vill age, KS: Center for Understanding the Built Environment. 2004, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Graves, Ginny. “CUBE’s Mission.” Prairie Village, KS: Center fo r the Understand ing of the Built Environment. 2002, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Graves, Ginny. “CUBE Resource Mate rials.” Prairie Village, KS: Center for Understanding the Built Environment. 2002, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Graves, Ginny. Walk Around the Block. Prairie Village, KS: Center for Understanding the Built Environment. 1997. Graves, Ginny. Center “What is community-based education?,” Prairie Village, KS: Center for the Understanding of the Built E nvironment. 2002, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Graves, Ginny. “What’s a Q-Bee?” Prairie Villa ge, KS: Center for Understanding the Built Environment, March 2000, 9 October 2006; . Internet. Graves, Ginny. “Workshops.” Prairie Village, KS: Center for Understanding the Built Environment.2002, 27 August 2006; . Internet. Gulde, Bill. “The Community as Classroom,” CRM, no. 8 (2000): 22. Hankins, Canetta S. Project Coordinator. Focus on 2000: A Heritage Education Perspective . U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service National Center for Preservation Technology a nd Training Publication No. 97-08, 1997. Hunter, Kathleen. “Heritage Education: What’s Going on Out There,” CRM 16, no. 2 (1992): 6-7. 141

PAGE 142

Inside Schools. “School Profile.” New Yor k, NY: Inside Schools. 2005, 19 October 2006; . Internet. Institute of Museum and Library Sciences.“Av ailable Grants.” Washington, DC: IMLS. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. Loncar, Kathryn and Ginny Graves. “Evalu ation Supports Total Cross Curriculum Integration of Built Environment Education” Measuring the Success of Environmental Education Programs , Center for Understanding the Built Environment (July 1994): 2-3. Merrow, John. “ Schools Go AYP Over Test.” Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Times, 8 May 2003, 30 September 2006; . Internet. Metcalf, Fay. “Creating Lesson Plans for Teaching with Historic Places,” CRM 16, no. 2 (1992): 12-13. Miller, Rachel. “Youth Education, ” Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. 2004, 14 October 2006; .Internet. Montana Historical Society. Architecture: It’s All Around You . Helena, MT: The Montana Historical Society, 2004. Montana Historical Society. “Discover the Past, Educational Outreach Resources and Tours,” Helena, MT: Montana Histor ical Society. 2006, 3 October 2006; . Internet. Montana Historical Society. “Theme 5 Ancient Shelter,” Helena, MT: Montana Historical Society. 2006, 3 October 2006; . Internet. Morken, Betsy, and Cindi Johnson. “A Visit to Hi storic Watkins Mill.” Prairie Village, KS: Center for Understanding the Built Environment. 2002, 29 September 2006; Internet. Nantucket Island Chamber of Comme rce. “Nantucket Trivia.” Nantucket, MA: Nantucket Island Chamber of Commerce. 2006, 29 October 2006; . Internet. 142

PAGE 143

National Council for Preservation Education. “A bout the National Council for Preservation Education.” Burlington, VT: University of Vermont. 2005, 19 September 2006; . Internet. National Endowment for the Arts. “Apply for a Grant.” Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. National Endowment for the Arts. “NEA at a Glance.” Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. National Endowment for the Arts. “Presenting.” Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. National Endowment for the Humanities. Wa shington, DC: “We the People.” National Endowment for the Humaniti es. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. National Park Service. “ Creative Teaching with Historic Places,” CRM 23, no. 8 (2000): 3-52. National Park Service. “Historic Preservation Fund Grants.” National Park Service. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. National Park Service. “Save America’s Treasur es.” Washington, DC: National Park Service. 2006, 29 October 2006; . Internet. National Register of Historic Places. “A Gu ide for Developing Teaching with Historic Places Lesson Plans.” Washington, DC: Nationa l Register of Historic Places. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. National Register of Historic Places. “About TwHP.” Washingt on, DC: National Register of Historic Places. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. National Register of Historic Places. “Teaching with Historic Places: Feedback,” Washington, DC: National Register of Histor ic Places. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. National Register of Historic Places. “Teachi ng with Historic Places: Lesson Plan Index History Standards,” Washington, DC: Nationa l Register of Historic Places. 2006, 27 August 2006; . Internet. 143

PAGE 144

National Trust for Historic Preservation. “National Preservation Endowment: Financial Assistance Programs.” Washington, DC: Nati onal Trust for Historic Preservation. 2005, 20 October 2006; . Internet. Natoli, Salvatore J. “Not es on Location and Place,” CRM 16, no. 2 (1992): 10-11. New Hampshire Educators Online. “Curriculu m Standard.” Washingt on, DC: NHEON. 2006, 21 October 2006; . Internet. Ottavino, Kate. “Historic Preservation Research Project.” Newark, NJ: NJIT Center for Architecture & Building Science Research. 2004, 30 August 2004; . Internet. Ottavino, Kate. “Mission.” Newark, NJ: NJIT Center for Architecture & Building Science Research. 2004, 30 August 2006; . Internet. Patrick, John J. “Prominent Places for Historic Places: K-12 Social Studies Curriculum,” CRM 16, no. 2 (1992): 8-9. Pedulla, Joseph, Lisa Abrams, George Madaus, Michael Russell, Miguel Ramos, and Jing Miao. " Perceived Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings from a National Survey of Teachers." Boston, MA: Boston College. 2003, 30 September 2006; available from . Internet. Pennsylvania Historical and Mu seum Commission. “Preservation Education.” Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Historical and Muse um Commission. 2005, 28 September 2006; . Internet. President’s Committee on the Arts and Sciences. “Coming Up Taller Awards.” Washington, DC: President’s Committee on the Arts a nd Sciences. 2006, 20 October 2006; . Internet. Richmond, Sheila. “History.” Heritage Education—Louisiana. Summary Report 2000-2002 . Natchitoches, LA: National Center for Pr eservation Technology and Training, 2002, 3 October 2006; . Internet. 144

PAGE 145

Richmond, Sheila. “Mini-Grants.” Natchitoches , LA: Heritage Education—Louisiana, 2002, 3 October 2005; . Internet Richmond, Sheila. “Mission Statement for Herita ge Education—Louisiana.” Natchitoches, LA: Heritage Education—Louisiana. 2002, 3 October 2006; . Internet. Richmond, Sheila.“Welcome Letter.” Heritage Education—Louisiana. Summary Report 20002002. Natchitoches, LA: National Center fo r Preservation Technology and Training, 2002, 15 September 2006; . Internet. Richmond, Sheila. “Workshops.” Heritage Education—Louisiana. Summary Report 2000-2002 . Natchitoches, LA: National Center for Pr eservation Technology and Training, 2002, 15 September 2006; . Internet. Risk, Paul. “Interpretation A Road to Creative Enlightenment.” CRM 17, no. 2 (1994): 37-40. Rozhon, Tracie. “Nantucket Worries That Its past Is Being Renovated Away.” The New York Times , 1 August 1999, 2 November 2006; . Internet Shuford, Pat. “Draft Report: Lower East Side Su perplex.” New York, NY: The Salvadori Center, September 2006. Shull, Carol D. “Creating a Partnership,” CRM 16, no. 2 (1993): 4-5. South Dakota State Historical Soci ety. “SD4History.” Pierre, SD: South Dakota State Historical Society. 17 September 2006, 28 September 2006; . Internet. South Dakota State Historical Society. “Places Worth Exploring.” Pierre, SD: South Dakota State Historical Society. 17 Se ptember 2006, 28 September 2006; . Internet. Spies, Paul. “Essential Supports for Sustaining Interdisciplinary Teams: Lessons from Two Departmentalized High Schools.” National Association of Secondary School Principals. St. Cloud, MN: 2001, 17 October 2006; . Internet. Stedman, Lawrence C. Stedman. “The Achiev ement Crisis is Real: A Review of The Manufactured Crisis .” Education Policy Analysis 4, no. 1, 23 January 1996, 15 September 2006; . Internet. 145

PAGE 146

Tampa Preservation Incorporated. “Awards.” Ta mpa, FL: Tampa Preservation, Inc. 2003, 19 September 2006; . Internet. Tampa Preservation Incorporated. “Education.” Tampa, FL: Tampa Preservation, Inc. 2003, 19 September 2006; . Internet. The History Channel. Save Our History Educators Manual . New York, NY: The History Channel. 2004, 27 August 2006; . Internet. U.S. Department of Education. Office of th e Secretary, Office of Public Affairs. A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind . US Department of Ed ucation: Washington, DC, 2004. U.S. Department of Education. “Teaching Am erican History.” Wash ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.16 October 2006, 2 November 2006; . Internet. Webber, Tara. “Buildings and Exhibits.” Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2000, 6 September 2006; . Internet. Webber, Tara. “Drisco House.” Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2000, 6 September 2006; . Internet. Webber, Tara. “Joshua Jackson House.” Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2000, 6 September 2006; . Internet. Webber, Tara. “Puddle Dock Through the Cent uries.” Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2000, 6 September 2006; . Internet. Webber, Tara. “Winn-Yeaton Connected Houses.” Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum. 2000, 6 September 2006; . Internet. Weber, Joseph A. Architecture Everywhere: Investigating the Built Environment of Your Community . Chicago, IL: Zephyr Press, 2000. Weeks, Kay. “Anatomy of a Book: The Great American Landmarks Adventure ,” CRM 16, no. 2 (1992): 19. White, Bill White. “Instilling a lo ve of American history.” in terview by Lloyd Dobyns (Colonial Williamsburg, 9 January 2006) , 29 September 2006; Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, . Internet. 146

PAGE 147

White, Charles S. “Teacher Training for Teaching with Historic Places,” CRM 16, no. 2 (1992): 17. Winters, Nathan B. Architecture is Elementary: Visual Thinking Through Architectural Concepts . Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1997. Wisconsin Historical Society. “Teachers and Students Portal.” Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society. 2006, 16 October 2006; . Internet. Wisconsin Historical Society. “About the Wisc onsin Historical Society.” Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society. 2006, 16 October 2006; .Internet. 147

PAGE 148

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kerry Vautrot received her Bachelor of Arts in historic preservation fr om the University of Mary Washington, in Fredericksburg, Virginia, in December of 2005. During her time at Mary Washington Kerry was actively involved in pres ervation through working in the Department of Historic Preservation, serving as treasurer and Vice President of the Preservation Club and receiving the Bowley Scholar a ppointment at the James Monroe Museum. In January 2006 she began her graduate studies in the Master of Science in Architectural Studies program, concentrating in historic preservation at the Univ ersity of Florida. While at UF she helped to start Preservation Interests: thei r preservation student organization. Perhaps the highlight of her time at UF was the opportunity to study on Nant ucket Island through the Pr eservation Institute: Nantucket program. Though her hometown is Williamsburg, Virginia she has spent the past five summers working at Strawbery Banke Museum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. She is passionate about the future of preservation and confident in the direction the profession is moving. 148