The idea that the New Zealand education system will cater to all students, regardless of ability, and support them in developing their full potential to the best of their abilities, is enshrined in the famous 1939 Beeby/Fraser statement. Equality of access policy discourse has shifted to emphasise equitable outcomes, focussed increasingly on preparing students for success in the globalised, 21st century knowledge economy. In this context, the design and development of innovative new school buildings and refurbishments of existing facilities have been promoted as a policy that will enable, even bring about, modern pedagogical practices that, in turn, will achieve the stated aim of preparing students for the 21st century global economy. Arguments against retaining traditional single-cell classrooms include their perpetuation of traditional, mainstream (‘one-size-fits-all’) approaches to teaching and learning, while new, radical building designs hold the promise of enabling the desired ‘new’ pedagogies. Flexible learning environments encourage and enable teachers to exchange ‘front-of-the-room’, single teacher presentational approaches for collaborative, dispersed and facilitative styles, often in teams, working with multiple students in shared, common learning spaces. The New Zealand Curriculum has ensured inclusion as an educational principle, and current Ministry of Education policy discourse reminds schools of their commitment to this principle, and specifically links building design and design processes to ensuring inclusivity. So it should be asked whether non-traditional, flexible learning spaces can be inclusive. This article places this question in the context of the historically evolving approach to inclusion in the New Zealand context, and with reference to the ‘spatial turn’ in recent New Zealand education policy. This turn to enhanced flexibility and innovation has implications for inclusivity, reflected in both Ministry of Education policy discourse and critiques suggesting the exclusionary effects of flexibility. It is argued with reference to Lefebvre that notions of inclusion and exclusion are inherent in social practices that are both superimposed upon material space as much as they are influenced by the design features of that space.

中文翻译：

---

灵活的学习空间：设计包容？

1939 年著名的 Beeby/Fraser 声明体现了新西兰教育系统将迎合所有学生的需求，无论他们的能力如何，并支持他们尽最大努力发挥他们的全部潜力。平等获取政策话语已转向强调公平结果，越来越关注让学生为在全球化的 21 世纪知识经济中取得成功做好准备。在此背景下，创新性新校舍的设计和开发以及现有设施的翻新已被推广为一项政策，该政策将实现甚至带来现代教学实践，从而实现既定目标，为学生做好准备。 21 世纪全球经济。反对保留传统单细胞教室的论点包括他们对传统、主流（“一刀切”）的教学和学习方法，而新的、激进的建筑设计有望实现所需的“新”教学法。灵活的学习环境鼓励和使教师能够交换“前台”、单一教师的演示方法，以实现协作、分散和促进风格，通常以团队形式，在共享的公共学习空间中与多个学生一起工作。新西兰课程已确保将包容性作为一项教育原则，目前教育部的政策论述提醒学校他们对这一原则的承诺，并将建筑设计和设计过程与确保包容性联系起来。所以应该问，非传统的、灵活的学习空间是否可以包容。本文将这个问题置于新西兰历史上不断发展的包容性方法的背景下，并参考了新西兰最近教育政策中的“空间转向”。这种增强灵活性和创新性的转变对包容性产生了影响，这反映在教育部的政策论述和批评中，表明灵活性具有排他性影响。参考 Lefebvre 的观点认为，包容和排斥的概念是社会实践中固有的，它们都叠加在物质空间上，同时也受到该空间设计特征的影响。这种增强灵活性和创新性的转变对包容性产生了影响，这反映在教育部的政策论述和批评中，表明灵活性具有排他性影响。参考 Lefebvre 的观点认为，包容和排斥的概念是社会实践中固有的，它们都叠加在物质空间上，同时也受到该空间设计特征的影响。这种增强灵活性和创新性的转变对包容性产生了影响，这反映在教育部的政策论述和批评中，表明灵活性具有排他性影响。参考 Lefebvre 的观点认为，包容和排斥的概念是社会实践中固有的，它们都叠加在物质空间上，同时也受到该空间设计特征的影响。