8/4/2014 School design for the future

http://www.schoolfacilities.com/_coreModules/content/contentDisplay_print.aspx?contentID=2915 1/2

19744 Beach Blvd. Suite 154Huntington Beach, CA 92648

(714) 442-2757editor@schoolfacilities.com

Future Proofing Schools: strategies and implementation Part 2 in an on-going series on the future of schools By: Frank M . Locker, P hD, A IA , REFP - Tuesday, A ugus t 21 , 2007 Source:

Last month I outlined my concept that a future-proof facility anticipates changes in education by being flexible inmultiple ways, and that the most important step in future-proofing was that first one of changing attitudes. This monthI'll cover some user friendly future-proofing strategies to be implemented now that can 'fit' in two different educationalworlds: present practice and anticipated future.

The biggest challenge for those in school management and leadership who grasp the long view to the future is how tomake a convincing case for concepts and components that may have little perceived value to others who only hold apresent day, traditional understanding of educational delivery. The key to acceptability is to make future-proofingdecisions in a manner that still supports current practice well enough, although not necessarily perfectly. If new designsperfectly serve only today's methods of instruction, the future will be shortchanged. If schools are planned solely for thekind of schools we will have in 2040, present users won't be comfortable. Viable future-proofing requires finding thatbalance between serving current practice and supporting a different kind of future. Some new concept components maybe potential energy only, and not get used for years. Others may prove to expedite the evolution of educationaldelivery in your school by providing opportunities for more innovative and effective teaching.

In this last regard your facilities can become critical components of your "learning organization." This concept, outlinedvery eloquently by Peter Senge et al in Schools That Learn, argues that schools that serve students best are those thatare constantly engaged in learning as an organization. One might ask, "How much does your facility contribute to yourorganization's learning?"

The isolated self-contained classroom, once the ideal for educational delivery, is now the biggest limitation we have foreducation in the future. Teaching is becoming less isolated and more collaborative. Learning is becoming morepersonal with lap tops for all and personal learning plans, and more cooperative, experiential, and project based. Thenew classroom needs to allow interconnection, varied student group sizes, and multiple simultaneous student activities. It needs to offer variety.

In the future a suite of varied learning spaces will replace the row of classrooms we all know so well. Realistically,however, most educators are not yet ready to give up the turf or the familiarity of their individual classrooms. Acceptingthis, current classrooms can be future-proofed by creating connections and adding variety. Classroom connectionsfacilitate teaming, sharing, interdisciplinary learning, and project-based learning. They allow a teacher in one room tosupervise students in another. Variety within and among spaces facilitates different learning styles and teachingpractices.

Create connections with windows between rooms. For student and teacher movement, adddoors. Doing so will facilitate correlation of complimentary subjects, supporting forexample, math-science and English-social studies related curriculums. Single doors arebasic; double doors are better. Sliding doors may be better yet. Concerned about the lossof teaching wall space with additional doors? Cover the doors with marker board, asFlansburgh Associates did for the Ipswich, MA, Middle/High School.

Doors such as these are much more cost effective and functional than traditional foldingwalls. The folding wall is a twentieth century concept, perfect for converting isolated singleclassrooms into isolated double sized classes, but little else. No surprise most of them

never seem to get opened. They do not offer hourly flexibility or support smaller group sizes in the manner smallerdoors do. If you must have a folding wall, install it to cut a standard classroom in half, since the trend is toward smallerclass sizes and schools never seem to have enough seminar-sized spaces.

The key variable in planning facilities that supplement the classroom is the circulationspace. Often comprising 25 percent of total building area, this 'no mans land' in traditionalschool buildings can be the bonus learning space of future oriented facilities. Future-proofschool planning captures and converts circulation space into student learning space. Goodfuture-proof design will place generous windows between the classrooms and the circulationspace to allow it to act as 'breakout' space, extending the learning zone for studentsworking independently or in groups, still under the observationof nearby teachers. We developed such spaces at CedarSprings Middle School, Cedar Springs, MI (DeJONG Educational

Planners, BetaDesign Architects). They call them "yards." As the plan shows they take uplittle more space than a typical corridor. And, as the images show, they offer tremendousfunctionality in service to the classroom teachers.

8/4/2014 School design for the future

http://www.schoolfacilities.com/_coreModules/content/contentDisplay_print.aspx?contentID=2915 2/2

Rethinking furniture and casework use presents some of the most effective future-proofingchoices. Reduce built-in casework and cabinets to the minimum. Instead, put them on wheels. Movable storage can then be relocated to where it is needed by school users as subjects or deliverymethods change. In the downtown K-12 School, Minneapolis, Cuningham Group Architects usedrolling casework for everything from bookcases to student lockers (and rolling desks as well). Theirs was custom built, but rolling casework is readily available from many manufacturers. Thescience demo desk on wheels is my favorite. It might be seen as an ad hoc expedient for a poorlyserviced building, but it is really the poster child of future-proofing flexibility. Freeing science up from the lab opens all sorts of possibilities for scheduling,integrated learning, and hands-on learning.

Good future proofing demands student furniture that can be arranged andrearranged in multiple groupings, allowing common work surfaces, individual

work, and discussion groups. Never buy student seats with attached desktops. These 'one-armedbandits' represent the worst of twentieth century educational thinking: highly efficient, economical, not comfortable, andcontrary to current research on effective learning. They support lecturing very well, but nothing else. And they are hardto sit in for extended periods. They seem to be indestructible, so buying them now creates a fifty-year problem of

inappropriateness. Good future-proofing demands student furniture that can be arrangedand rearranged in multiple groupings, allowing common work surfaces, individual work, anddiscussion groups.

Less constrained classrooms and flexible furniture are not enough to future-proof ourschools. Much has to be done in creating small learning communities, making learningspaces flexible for different subjects and activities, facilitating conversion fromdepartmentally based school organizations to other organizations, preemptive planning tomanage enrollment fluctuations. You'll hear more about these in next month's future-proofing installment, along with the renovation tactics I promised in the first installment in

this series.

Know any good future-proofing examples? Have comments? E-mail them to me at fl@franklocker.com.

Dr. Frank M. Locker consults as an educational planner and school designer from a base in the greater Boston area. He was the1999-2000 Planner of the Year of the Council of Educational Facilities Planners, International (CEFPI). This national awardrecognized his achievements over twenty-five years of educational planning, school design, and service to the profession. Afrequent speaker at regional and national conferences, he was cited for his research in classroom design and participatoryplanning. Current projects are in Kent, England; Cayman Islands; Machias, ME; S. Burlington, VT; Battle Creek, MI; Middletown,

RI; and Bethel, AK.