Leonardo Ricci in the United States (1952-1972). A twenty-year American transfer as a turning experience in teaching and design.

The research solved the historiographic lacuna about Leonardo Ricci’s work in the United States focusing on the span 1952-1972 as a fundamental period for the architect's research, which moved from the project for the community space to macrostructures. The considered period is comprised between Ricci’s first travel to the United States and the date of his resignation from the University of Florida, one year before his resignation from the deanship of the faculty of architecture of Florence (1973). The research retraced philologically the stages of Ricci’s activity in the U.S.A. unveiling the premises and results of his American transfer, and to what extent it marked a turning period for his work as educator and designer and for the wider historiographic contest of the Sixties. The American transfer helped him grounding his belief in avoiding a priori morphological results in favor of what he called the “form-act” design method. Ricci’s research in the U.S.A. is described in his books Anonymous (XX century) and City of the Earth (unpublished). In them and in Ricci’s projects one common thread is traceable: the application of the “form-act” as the best tool to conceive urban design, a discipline established in the United States during Ricci’s first stay at M.I.T., in which he encountered the balance point between architecture and urban planning, between the architect’s sign and his being anonymous, between the collective and the individual dimension. With the notions of “anonymous architecture” and “form-act”, Urban Design and “open work” are the key words to understand Ricci’s work in the United States and in Italy. Urban design’s main goal to design the city as a collective work of art was the solution of that dychothomous research that enlivened Ricci’s work and one possible answer to that tension useful for him to seek the truth of architecture.

The Right to Voice: Its Realization by Estonian and American Parents in Public Schools

Investigating parents’ formal engagement opportunities in public schools serves well to characterize the relationship between states and societies. While the relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic success has been thoroughly investigated, rarely has it been seen to indicate countries’ governing regimes. The researcher was curious to see whether and how does parents’ voice differ in different democracies. The hypothesis was that in mature regimes, institutional opportunities for formal parental engagement are plenty and parents are actively involved; while in young democracies there are less opportunities and the engagement is lower. The assumption was also that parental deliberation in expressing their dissatisfaction with schools differs across democracies: where it is more intense, there it translates to higher engagement. Parents’ informedness on relevant regulations and agendas was assumed to be equally average, and their demographic background to have similar effects on engagement. The comparative, most different systems design was employed where public middle schools last graders’ parents in Tartu, Estonia and in Huntsville, Alabama the United States served as a sample. The multidimensional study includes the theoretical review, country and community analyses, institutional analysis in terms of formal parental involvement, and parents’ survey. The findings revealed sizeable differences between parents’ engagement levels in Huntsville and Tartu. The results indicate passivity in both communities, while in Tartu the engagement seems to be alarmingly low. Furthermore, Tartu parents have much less institutional opportunities to engage. In the United States, multilevel efforts to engage parents are visible from local to federal level, in Estonia similar intentions seem to be missing and meaningful parental organizations do not exist. In terms of civic education there is much room for development in both countries. The road will be longer for a young democracy Estonia in transforming its institutional systems from formally democratic to inherently inclusive.