EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES IN GEORGIAíS SCHOOLS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS............................................................................................................... v

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1

Purpose of Study................................................................................................ 6

Research Questions............................................................................................ 7

Setting................................................................................................................. 7

Significance of Study.......................................................................................... 7

Assumptions...................................................................................................... 9

Limitations of Study........................................................................................... 9

Definitions.......................................................................................................... 9

Organization of Study........................................................................................ 9

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................................................................................... 11

Energy Efficient, Flexible and Sustained Designs............................................. 13

Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 18

Safety and Security........................................................................................... 20

Collaboration.................................................................................................... 21

Discussion........................................................................................................ 24

Classroom Space and Furnishings.................................................................... 25

Technology...................................................................................................... 26

Organization of Classroom and Administrative Offices................................... 27

Student Communal Spaces and School Grounds.............................................. 28

Teacher Facilities.............................................................................................. 30

Functional Use: Instructional Strategies and Instructional Opportunities....... 31

Functional Use: Community and Social Use.................................................... 34

Discussion........................................................................................................ 36

3 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 37

Research Questions.......................................................................................... 37

Population and Sample..................................................................................... 37

Methods........................................................................................................... 38

Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................... 38

4 FINDINGS.................................................................................................................. 40

Introduction...................................................................................................... 40

Demographics................................................................................................... 42

Energy Efficient, Flexible and Sustained Designs............................................. 42

Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 44

Safety and Security........................................................................................... 45

Collaboration.................................................................................................... 48

Classroom Space and Furnishings.................................................................... 52

Technology....................................................................................................... 54

Organization of Classrooms and Offices......................................................... 57

Student Communal Spaces............................................................................... 58

School Grounds............................................................................................... 60

Teacher Facilities.............................................................................................. 61

Instructional/Social Program Services and Opportunities................................ 62

Classroom Instructional Opportunities............................................................ 64

Instructional Opportunities and Educational Programs................................... 68

Organization of Instruction.............................................................................. 69

Social and Community Use.............................................................................. 71

Open-Ended Questions.................................................................................... 73

5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS........................... 76

Summary of Findings........................................................................................ 76

Discussion........................................................................................................ 85

Recommendations............................................................................................. 85

Implications for Further Research.................................................................... 87

REFERENCES Truncated ............................................................................................................ 88

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 93

A SURVEY FOR GEORGIA...................................................................................... 93

B VIRGINIA FINDINGS.......................................................................................... 105

C OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES IN ORIGINAL TEXT..................... 106

D OPEN-ENDED DATA SUMMARY................................................................... 121

E PERMISSION GRANTED FOR VIRGINIA SURVEY....................................... 128

F VIRGINIA SURVEY.............................................................................................. 129

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Demographics.................................................................................................................. 42

Table 2: Energy Efficient, Flexible and Sustained Designs............................................................ 43

Table 3: Aesthetics........................................................................................................................ 45

Table 4: Safety and Security.......................................................................................................... 47

Table 5: Funding and Collaboration............................................................................................... 49

Table 6: Classroom Space and Furnishings................................................................................... 51

Table 7: Technology-Collaboration............................................................................................... 51

Table 8: Classroom, Space and Furnishings.................................................................................. 53

Table 9: Technology...................................................................................................................... 56

Table 10: Organization of Classrooms and Offices....................................................................... 58

Table 11: Student Communal Space.............................................................................................. 59

Table 12: School Grounds............................................................................................................. 60

Table 13: Teacher Facilities........................................................................................................... 61

Table 14: Instructional/Social Program Services and Opportunities............................................. 63

Table 15: Technology and Communal Use ................................................................................... 66

Table 16: Instructional Classroom Programs Opportunities......................................................... 66

Table 17: Instructional Opportunities and Educational Programs................................................ 69

Table 18: Organization of Instruction........................................................................................... 70

Table 19: Social and Community Use........................................................................................... 72

Table 20: Trends of Georgiaís Schools.......................................................................................... 77

Table 21: Comparison of Similar Trends Surveyed for Georgia and Virginia................................ 80

Table 22: Non-comparable Trends................................................................................................ 81

Table 23: Comparable Trends Not Occurring for Both Georgia and Virginia............................... 83

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Studies have proven significant correlations to school facilities and student outcomes, including student achievement and student behavior, as facilities assist with shaping the educational environment and in many instances its process or function: Lighting (Mahone 2002; Kuller and Lindsten 1992); Indoor Air Quality (Wargo and Wargo 2002; Daisey and Angell 1998); Acoustics (Maxwell and Evans 1999; Mills 1975); Color (Sinofsky and Knirck 1981); Ergonomics (Marschall at al. 1995); and State of Repair (Berner 1993; Bowers and Burkett 1989). The most effective design features used and the extent school facilities influence student outcomes are educational interests continually sought by educators and facility builders. Interests in design features occur at various levels and sects. Those interested in physical characteristics aim to understand the effectiveness of maintenance and operations, while those directly involved with curricula are likely to be concerned with the function of the building and its use for the learning processes. The popularity of both continues to increase, while seeking to understand the connection of facilities to student learning. As a result of inevitable influences on educational change, trends begin to emerge in educational design and further shape the learning environment and experiences.

The influences of school design contributing to such trends in school features are significant in number and are attributed to universal and local interests, change, and advancements. Furthermore, technology has initiated change in which communication has drastically changed the entire world, creating trends for schools to react to societyís interests (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells, 2004; McCain, 1996; Sanoff, 1994). When communication and technology have made it possible to have a business meeting on one continent and dinner that same night on another, change is inevitable in education. Not only has it impacted the physical design of schools through the installation of features such as computers and technical equipment, but the access and resources offered have a direct influence on the functional uses, resulting in curriculum and knowledge prioritization (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells, 2004; McCain, 1996; Sanoff, 1994). Technological advancements alter learning methods as learning styles can be more easily adapted than before in classrooms. Given the variability and individuality technology offers, demand is created for flexibility. Making the school design flexible and adaptable is a compelling issue for facility builders, given the on-going influences.

Although not significantly affecting functional features, another universal influence on facility building directly impacting the physical design features is energy:

Energy should be considered the architect.... Aside from the pressing social responsibilities to conserve fuels, educational planners need to consider the financial stress aggravated by energy scarcities. In 1970, school districts across the country spent $26.70 per pupil for energy. Projections indicate tripling of energy costs by 1885 and quadrupling by 1992. (Wilson, 1981, p. 93)

Recent emphasis has been placed on ìgreen buildingî to make efforts to conserve resources.

While technology and energy globally influence school design, other factors influence the design of schools at a micro-society, community level and are specific to educational facilities. ìAmong the most important issues and trends relevant to school design are the following: enrollment trends, program requirements, conditions of existing facilities, schools as community centers and changes in school utilizationî (Kliment, 2001, p. 92). Society and government make efforts to reform education often simultaneously with leader and community beliefs contributing their own educational objectives and goals. Schools and educational progress are central concerns, especially in an era of federal policies such as No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), increased accountability, and expectancy for standardized scores to increase for all students. The definition of student achievement is often referred to as student outcome, since definitions of student achievement and student success have begun to differ. ìAt the same time that thereís this push toward standardized curricula and standardized testing...thereís a movement in what seems to be the opposite direction: toward highly exploratory, individualized (and individually directed) learningî (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells, 2004, p. xvii).

Regarding the physical environment, how renovations and growth populations are viewed may or may not be referred to as an influence on school design features, but they are definitely considerations, since they influence the demand to build or re-design. Knowing that school facilities have a profound effect on the learning process, health and curricula are serious concerns regarding school facilities. Students cannot learn in areas with poor ventilation and health hazards. Building-related illnesses, resulting from ineffective indoor environmental quality management is conducive to student absences and results in students not performing well. Such results could be attributed to respiratory problems or allergies caused from poor building conditions (EPA, 2000, para 6). Aside from health, outdated equipment and dilapidation hinders learning for the desired student outcome. The average age of school buildings is approximately 42 years old (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999). Given these facts and trends it is expected that schools already in existence will have to be maintained by upgrading and replacing equipment as well as renovated to meet current educational practices.

In the first part of the 19^th century the industrial expansion ìmade it necessary to take new, comprehensive measures and build an increasing number of schoolsî (Roth, 1950, p. 24). Today, ìA 60 million enrollment is expected by 2030î (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Public Affairs, 2000), efforts are going to have to be made to accommodate growing student populations with additional schools. Enrollments for public and private schools peaked in 2001, and although not projected to grow at the same rate, enrollment will continue to grow in both public and private schools. Factors influencing enrollment include migration, birth rate levels in the 1990's, and changing state and local policies leading to higher enrollments through additional programs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).

As with the industrial expansion, additional social influences affect school design from social, family constructs. Whether by necessity or choice, familiesí status (both parents working, single parent homes), youth pregnancies, work ethics, educational experiences, and socio-economic status are constructs contributing to changes in school design. School features are designed to compliment or compensate for changes in families and society. In many instances, school facilities are designed and prepared to accommodate traditional needs of the home and offer opportunities for students and their families not otherwise accessible. These needs also bring about additional costs and are increasing in number and variability. Whether the increases are attributed to actual changes in society or recent awareness thus creating an interest to react, they have become a part of many schoolsí functions.

As a result of the many influences on school design ranging from global to local interests, efforts to create sustainable, efficient, and flexible schools are becoming emerging aspects of school facilities. European studies on infrastructure design, resulting from in depth qualitative studies of quantitative findings suggest ìstudent academic achievement improves with improved building conditions. Individual factors, such as lighting levels, air quality, temperature, and acoustics, have an effect on student behavior and outcomesî (Fisher, 2002, p.5). Given that studies have linked school facilities, student achievement, and student outcomes, knowing and understanding the recent designs existing and available is important for improving design features to maximize educational opportunities. What kinds of school designs are being created to support these reforms? Are buildings representative of minimal standards and specifications as outlined by legislation, or do they go beyond expected minimums? Are they prototypes or expanded structures reflecting the desires of individual systems and communities from which they are initiated? Are schools being designed as traditional structures for teacher lead-instruction with limited mobility or flexibility? Are philosophies taking a more practical or Deweyan approach than ever before to accommodate aesthetics and a learner -centered approach; or are they designed progressively, reflective of the work ethic and economic influence on education? These questions are already a part of the philosophies shaping school planning as additional trends are emerging in school design as part of the 21^st Century. Most importantly, do the answers to these questions regarding school design exemplify the research for helping students learn and reflect the desires of all those who contribute to the educational environment and use it?

Awareness of design options are a very important part of improving and evaluating educational settings; therefore, as efforts are made to build or renovate schools and educational facilities, urgency is created regarding understanding designs that represent the most effective learning environment (Schneider, 2002). Educators and students ideally benefit from an educational design that is functional and serves the goals and desires for educational outcomes. Designs not planned carefully in schools cannot only be costly and wasteful, but in certain instances bring about continual frustration for the classroom environment when teacher, administrative, and community pedagogical preferences and practical functionalities are not considered. Buildings and classrooms where teachers cannot use appropriate equipment and where students are not comfortable and safe are not conducive to increasing student achievement. When educational facilities are planned to support learning, instruction can be facilitated more effectively through the physical and functional environment. According to Lackney, ìThe schools we build now will be with us for the next 50 yearsî (Rivero, 2004, p. 24); however, ìthe challenge is to create schools that will serve students well into the coming decades, yet remain within budgetî (Tucker & Zahn, 1997, p. 1). Research of existing features in schools, revealing whether design features are no longer applicable to the environment and to determine emergent features resulting from educational influences, contributes valuable knowledge to facility design planning.

Purpose of Study

Since educational studies have proven facilities have an effect on educational environments and student achievement, educational design should be further studied to continue to meet societal and educational goals as they currently exist and emerge. Bradley and Protheroe cite several studies of facilities affecting studentsí attitudes, achievement, health, and behavior: Lighting (Mahone 2002; Kuller and Lindsten 1992); Indoor Air Quality (Wargo and Wargo 2002; Daisey and Angell 1998); Acoustics (Maxwell and Evans 1999; Mills 1975); Color (Sinofsky and Knirck 1981); Ergonomics (Marschall at al. 1995); and State of Repair (Berner 1993; Bowers and Burkett 1989). Further studies on types and variations of design trends are valuable for continuing to make educational progress. Such research assists for determining how educational spaces are designed most effectively for providing optimum learning experiences, while maintaining healthy, safe learning environments.

The purpose of this study was to describe the design features found in Georgiaís schools and to determine the features existing, since they become outdated with educational change and new educational influences. Another focus of this study was to establish a benchmark for further studies regarding facilities and their connection to student achievement, student outcomes, and the educational environment. Specifically, this study reviewed schools built in Georgia to determine existing design features. The physical and functional environment of school design was studied to determine the features used most frequently in school designs. Once these characteristics were found, they were compared to findings from a similar study completed in Virginia (New Design Features, 1998-99). The Virginia study was used as a bench mark for comparison of findings.

Research Questions

1. What are the existing educational facility design features in Georgiaís schools?

2. How do these features and trends compare with those found in the Virginia study?

Setting

The setting consisted of over 2,000 schools in Georgia, both public and private. Both urban and rural districts were included. Local school administrators were asked to participate in surveys.

Significance of the Study

Georgiaís capital outlay for school facilities was approximately two million dollars as represented in the 2004 Governorís recommended budget (Georgia Department of Education, 2004). Population growth is presenting facility builders with projections they must take care of immediately. From fall of 2001 through fall of 2013 Georgia is expected to be one of the fifteen states with the largest projected enrollment increase in public elementary and secondary schools (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). As constructions and renovations continue to increase, facility planning, the earliest phase in facility building is becoming a more valuable component to the planners and their stakeholders for proactive efforts in school facilities. It is vital for these groups to be aware of various designs and features available and to gain as much understanding as possible of the influence of features used in schools. In order to inform school planners and all persons with the intent to improve schools, it is important to identify the features of existing schools and trends.

Teacher and student classroom instruction directly impact learning, and school facilities directly contribute and influence learning in the educational environment through their physical and functional features. School design can facilitate or restrict educational philosophies representative of traditional, progressive, or pragmatic approaches (Beaudlin, Merritt, Oja, & Sells, 2004; McCain, 1996; Sanoff, 1994; Ledford, 1981). The extent to which the environment is flexible, the extent to which spaces are designed for cooperative learning, how many student centers are established, and further areas for exploration directly influencing student achievement can all be reflected in school design. Designs can also be reflective of potential relationships and connections to community and parents. School design is ever changing with society and its progress. ìForward-thinking communities are taking a hard look at learning environments and applying the results to school design. Architects are beginning to use these new ideas in buildings they designî (Cunningham, 2002, p. 1). Since research has already directly linked facilities and student achievement, further studies on types, variations, and age of design trends are valuable for continuing to make educational progress.

Assumptions

1. The sample of participants who volunteered to respond was representative of Georgia.

2. Survey questionnaire and responses provide a valid measure of the building facilities.

Limitations of the Study

1. The schools were provided with e-mail invitations and not all requests to participate reached individuals due to server filters and incorrect or outdated e-mail addresses.

2. The administrators participating were volunteers.

Definitions

1. Physical Environment: Any physical feature of the building design such as safety mechanisms, classroom space, furnishings, technology, and similar physical features of design.

2. Functional Environment: The special programs or types of instruction that ìfunctionî or take place in the physical environment. Examples include preschool or high school programs, instructional scheduling, and instructional styles, such as team teaching.

3. Trend: a) As discussed in literature review, a general tendency or movement; a current style or liking; emphasis in design. b) As discussed in results, a feature occurring in at least 50% of schools surveyed.

4. Feature: Any physical or functional component of educational design.

Organization of Study

Chapter 1: This chapter consists of an introduction, which discusses examples of influences on school design and provides reference to the importance of further studying existing and emerging design features. Also included are the following research topics: problem, purpose, research questions, setting, and significance of study, assumptions, limitations, and definitions of terms.

Chapter 2: This chapter includes the review of literature as it relates to the physical and functional environment and discusses universal trends to consider regarding design features and considerations: sustainability, efficiency, aesthetics, safety and security, technology, and collaboration. The review of literature then follows these considerations by discussing the remaining individual or categorical features aligned to the survey while supporting the premise that features are emerging global interests. Examples are provided from various countries of schools built for the 21^st Century in addition to the United States. The literature review consists of the following outline: Energy Efficient, Flexible, and Sustained Designs; Aesthetics; Safety and Security; Collaboration; Classroom Space and Furnishings; Technology; Organization of Classroom and Administrative Offices; Student Communal Spaces and School Grounds; Teacher Facilities; Instructional Strategies and Instructional Opportunities; and Social and Community Use.

Chapter 3: Methodology, research questions, population and sample, methods, data collection and analysis

Chapter 4: Findings

Chapter 5: Summary of findings, recommendations, and implications for further research

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

As existing schools wear out and are renovated, or replaced, certain changes occur in school designs that might impact student outcomes. These changes and perhaps trends include features having never been a part of school design, or features included in school designs previously, but currently having a significant emphasis. For example, communities have always been a part of education and schools, but recently they have emerged as an intricate part of school design and the planning process. These emergent and emphasized designs exemplify, and in many instances, redefine educational environments.

In an era in search for redefining student outcomes and success, evidence already supports the premise that school design features influence student outcomes. Rethinking school design may be imperative for educational reform. In a report by the United States General Accounting Office results of a 1995 study revealed schools were unprepared for the 21^st Century. Only one decade ago these schools were found to have significant shortages in critical areas:

Most schools do not fully use modern technology. Although at least three-quarters of schools report having sufficient computers ... they do not have the system or building infrastructure to support them.... often not networked or connected to... the outside world.... Over 14 million students attend about 40 percent of schools that reported that their facilities cannot meet functional requirements of laboratory....Over half the schools reported unsatisfactory flexibility of instructional space necessary to implement many effective teaching strategies.... Although education reform requires facilities meet the functional requirements of key support services-such as private areas for counseling and testing, parent support activities, social/health care, day care and before-and after school care- about two-thirds of schools reported that they cannot meet the functional requirements of before-or after-school care or day care. (United States General Accounting Office, 1995, p.2)

A group of individuals including educators, facilities planners, architects, government leaders, and citizens met in 1998 and discussed ways of planning and designing schools for better learning environments. As a result of the meeting initiated by the U.S. Department of Education, six national design principals were identified to meet the nationís needs for the 21^st century. According to this group, school designs should (1) enhance teaching and learning for all learners; (2) serve as the center of their community; (3) include all community interests in planning process; (4) provide health, safety and security; (5) make effective use of available resources; and (6) be flexible and adaptable (Bingler, Quinn & Sullivan, 2003).

This literature review further discusses recent design trends of considerations and trends of design features as they emerge in the 21st Century by citing global examples in addition to examples in the United States. Examples serve to illustrate design features not as comparisons, but for supporting the premise that universal trends are emerging in school design. The term trend is usually meant to mean a general tendency or movement, a current style or liking (Webster). Certain trends are discussed in the literature review without reference to defining frequency, since the trends are recurrent in the literature and exemplify an emphasis. Current trends of consideration include sustainability, flexibility, efficiency, collaboration, safety, and aesthetic values as part of educational design for school facilities. These considerations as trends emerge through the features of the schoolís physical and functional environments. ìAll previous decision- making and data gathering can now be brought to bear on these two taxons. Together they allow for the creative use of resources, under control, in a context, within a structure that has certain functionsî (Rowe, 1981, p. 9), forming the school environment.

In design, the physical setting is referred to as the structural component, which represents ìthe natural and built environmentsî (Tanner, 2005, p. 1) of school facilities. The physical setting includes the following features of school design: safety and security; the classroom inclusive of space and furnishings; technology; school grounds; administrative and teacher facilities; and communal areas; and energy efficiency, inclusive of sustainable design features. The functional aspect of school facilities is defined as ìwhat is happening in the environmentî (Tanner, 2005, p. 1) and how the school uses its physical constructs.

Formal structures provide only the skeleton of a productive school. How people behave, interact, learn, and work together is what breathes life into a school. Schools that are improving are characterized by co-operative work relations among all adults. (Sebring & Bryk, 2000, p. 3)

Functional aspects have been categorized by the organization of instruction and the school programs occurring in the physical structure. These programs can include instructional orientations at any level, including elementary Head Start programs or high school vocational and career programs. Other functional aspects can include full service schools and special programs, including summer and after school programs, as well as additional youth or alternative programs. The functional settings of facilities represent how the building is used or how the facility functions as a whole, inclusive of programs and instructional organization. Organization of instruction is represented by whether various instructional styles such as team-teaching, block scheduling, or further varied instructional approaches are used. Through it pedagogical styles, such the extent of hands on learning and the emphasis of skills practiced, are reflected in facility planning and can affect structural design through classroom features by its size, arrangements of rooms, equipment, and additional implementation of features.

Energy Efficient, Flexible and Sustained Designs

With the onset of new schools and renovations taking place and given the societal accommodations schools are beginning to make to meet traditional needs, facility building has presented itself in the 21^st Century as a market giving imperative regard to efficiency and sustainability. With consideration of fast growing areas, ìthe school construction boom in the last decade forced some school districts to build faster and more cheaply. Speed of construction combined with costs savings, however, did not always equal success for long-term needsî(Construction Guide, 2002, p15). As a result, those involved with facility building are seeking efficient and sustainable designs to last, not necessarily short term fixes as ends.

Sustainable designs are found in regard to placement, energy, materials, and preventive measures to avoid any future or unexpected expenses. How important is sustainability? ìSustainable, educational design can generate capital, [along with] operational and maintenance savings ... to produce a high-quality facility that has a minimal impact on natural resources and costs less than a conventionally designed facilityî (Construction Guide, 2002, p 1). Sustainability is not just about efficient systems but how the building or design can be used or created to sustain efficiency. Examples of utilizing such approaches are found in consideration of building placement and the ways in which the building will be used. Not only in the United States, but these considerations are used for producing minimal operation and maintenance costs all over the world: documented facilities include Belgium, Finland, United Kingdom, Japan, France, Australia, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany and Canada (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001). Where buildings are placed in relation to the sun can limit solar gain resulting in savings of equipment needed for cooling; furthermore, day lighting used can save on the costs of light fixtures needed and energy consumption (Construction Guide, 2002). As a universal interest sustainability applications are evident in utilizing local resources to save on costs. In Finland recycled paper was used for installation as a sustainable material along with accessing local resources, pine and spruce. An example of a 21^st Century School built in Italy used stone as a local resource available for purposes of efficiency and to sustain costs (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001, p. 40).

While efficiency ensures a more cost effective and maximized approach, sustainability concentrates on long term efficiency and maintaining desired results. Therefore, using design strategies to make schools efficient can dually be designed for sustaining efficiency. For instance, lighting, ìindirect lighting using pendant fixtures that reflects the light from compact fluorescent bulbs off the ceiling provides higher efficiency with fewer fixturesî (Construction Guide, 2002, p. 2 ). This example exemplifies a technique used for efficiency by utilizing reflected light and reducing costs, while also exemplifying sustainability since the use of reflective light has been designed for the duration of the building to sustain efficiency. Florescent lights are not as popular; therefore, to obtain efficient and aesthetic results they are being replaced by natural light from the surroundings. In Switzerland, skylights were used for lighting in the ceilings and to help maintain a constant temperature. Additional examples utilizing the effects of lighting are found in Canada, Japan, Austria, France, Iceland, Italy and Portugal (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001).

Sustained efficiency can be achieved by selecting high-performance material that can increase healthy environments by preventing mold and other contributors to poor air quality, resulting in expensive costs to make corrections. Recommended are products not as porous, such as concrete and masonry to prevent damage usually occurring due to moisture (Construction Guide, 2002). Energy is a source that all buildings and facilities use. Design can control for energy efficiency and sustained use by using ìpower generated from renewable or ëgreeníenergy sources -such as wind turbines and photo-voltaic arrays (Construction Guide, 2002, p.1). Further applications for sustaining efficiency in design are found in roofing and water consumption. Roofing costs can be saved by using light colored roofing to reduce heat, and irrigation can be designed to collect and reuse rain water for buildings with large consumption (Construction Guide, 2002).

Traditionally, air is supplied and exhausted by way of ceiling vents, which requires greater air volume and larger equipment...a sustainable-design approach might use a raised floor as the plenum for air supply. This means heated and cooled air needs to be moved only three feet from the source.... Exhaust vents can be placed in the ceiling, with the added advantage of a fresher, one- way flow of air and the potential for improved indoor air quality. (Construction Guide, 2002, p.1)

Given the growth of school population and the impact technology has made in the recent decade, curriculum and facilities have to be designed for flexibility, and it is always wise to use a sustainable approach. Sustainable schools are designed flexibly for expansion and efficiency. Documented by Shelly (2002, p.1), ìthe Council for Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI) proclaimed...íteaching and learning requirements must be the driving force in planning, designing and constructing educational facilitiesí(CEFPI, 2001).î The onset of learning centers for cooperative learning from research revealing best practices for education suggests for flexible school designs in the physical realm. ìThe impact of a wide range of instructional technologies (not simply computers) has implications for a different kind of learning spaceî (Shelly, 2002, p. 1). As a response to improving education, facilities and designs are being reviewed and viewed as a means to facilitate and support current expectations making schools flexible and adaptable spaces. With such a non-stagnate curriculum and with consideration of costs to implement or provide equipment, sometimes costing more than the facility space, flexibility cannot be omitted from design, and technology is a primary example.

According to Dingeldein, vice-president of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), ëFlexibility is important for todayís career technical programs ....The turnover rate in programs is higher....They need to be plug and playí...noting that the rapid turnover of programs means facilities must be easily converted as needed. (Cutshall, 2003, p. 1)

Structurally related, technology in design is beginning to be thought of in terms of immediate needs and future needs. Examples of flexible and sustained planning in technology suggest that ìdistricts should consider putting conduit for future technology into classrooms and administrative areas that might not receive cabling for a few years....Installation during initial construction makes system changes easier and more cost effective in the futureî (Tucker & Zahn, 1997, p.1). Another alternative for planning flexible and sustainable designs regarding technology is for schools to be equipped using modular wiring. ìIt offers potential for substantial savings, enhances safety and greater flexibility....Modular wiring, or cable, is prefabricated wiring used for electrical, telecommunications and building-automation commands...components are delivered as they are required for a specific portion of the buildingî (Construction Guide, 2002, p. 3). The advantages lie within the concept of flexible, efficient, and sustained use as it is needed; ìthe overall cost of the project can be reduced by 25 to 40 percent by using modular wiring instead of the normal pipe and wireî (Construction Guide, 2002, p. 3).

Making the design flexible and sustainable can also include considerations for physical growth of the campus. An example is found in the design of the utilities. Ideally school design planning would create schools flexible enough to allow ìengineers to place utilities in paths that will minimize disruption to services and relocation costs later onî (Tucker & Zahn, 1997, p.1) when other buildings are added.

Energy efficient investments are smart business investments.

Since traditional fiscal resources are presently very limited, schools may, in some cases, need to look beyond traditional funding sources to solve problems. Since a lack of funds is the greatest barrier to school energy efficiency effort, private sector financing can help overcome this barrier. (America Association of School Administrators, 1992)

Additional alternatives can include special local options sales tax, (SPLOST), local collaborations, bonds, grants, and private contracting for additional funding sources. ìAlthough different approaches...have emerged, the voter-approved local bond issue is still the backbone of funding school infrastructure needsî (Sielke, 2003, p. 28). Depending on state statutes, districts can even lease or rent property as a funding source. Previous case studies include the Illinois School Building Commission; The Quincy Elementary School, Boston; Butte County, California; Inner Harbor Campus, Baltimore; Bowling Green, Kentucky; State of Florida; and Pontiac, Michigan: Human Resource Center (Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1971).

Aesthetics

Aesthetics is a part of all humans and their social world. It differentiates decisions of daily life reflecting human desires and pleasures of where they dine, play, and enjoy life. Such aesthetic values often determine why people choose one restaurant over the other, shopping areas, clothing, and name-brand products. How these interests or places appeal and reflect to the sensual side of individual natures is an intricate part of daily living. Similar concepts are also true of school facilities and the atmospheres they create. Recent studies reveal students achieve better in environments where they are comfortable. ìA 1997 study by R.W. Phillips indicated greater student achievement in school buildings of higher aesthetic standards....A sense of aesthetics humanizes spaces and simulates learning, studying, and socializing experiencesî (Focusing on Human Factors, 2003, p.2).

Given the considerable amount of time that students and teachers spend in classrooms, it is not unreasonable to expect these places to be hospitable.... The classroom environment can affect many attitudes and behaviors. High levels of density have resulted in dissatisfaction, decreased social interaction, and increased aggression. (Sanoff, 1994, p. 1)

Aesthetic environments are not only representative of classrooms. Cafeterias, school grounds, and other social areas have provided opportunities for students to relax, enjoy, and interact in environments. Music played in mornings, lunch, or at transitional moments during the day can have a calming effect on students as they prepare for their next tasks.

A sense of ownership results from respect for surroundings. Spaces designed with aesthetic pleasantness, complementary colors in proper furnishings, and galleries or a wall that display student artwork and trophies contribute to a sense of self-worth and ownership. (Focusing on Human Factors, 2003, p.1)

Plants placed throughout the halls and rooms contribute to a relaxed and attractive atmosphere. Design elements using color can make tremendous impressions when used as a factor of design. Dramatic, bright, bold, or softened colors are chosen to create feelings of calmness, warmth, excitement, or inspiration and give appearances of beauty and characteristics reflective of the environment (Stanton, 1995). In Austria color was applied to the concrete of the outer building for strong visual appearances and to identify it separately from the residential buildings (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001).

For schools community oriented, creating spaces for adults and children to safely be together while learning is an aesthetic feature represented through the establishment of ìfamilyî centers for students and families to share and interact. Family centers can be designed with furnishings offering comfortable places for parents to interact with their child, sometimes offering equipment for use they may not have access to otherwise. These inviting areas create a sense of family and community while connecting students and parents to the learning environment. Creating welcoming and comforting places could also initiate parental involvement and parental support often sought by educators.

Safety and Security

As outlined in Maslowís Hierarchy of Needs safety is a basic necessity and priority for all mankind (Maslow, 1954). Given the comfort safety brings to human lives, appropriate safety features are included in aesthetic qualities for school design. Without making students feel as though they are imprisoned, ensuring parents, teachers, students, and community membersí schools are a safe place to learn is detrimental given the recent tragedies and accessible dangers to students. Every effort to ensure school safety is imperative, while not creating an institutionalized environment.

Safety comprehensively represents two main categories: employee or student security and property protection (Dermody, 1995). Fencing or walled areas provide security and restrict children from lurking in unsafe places (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. 95). Classroom designs using high visibility arrangements and administrative offices being visible and dispersed throughout buildings are only a few of the emerging characteristics in school design in regard to safety. More common is glass or transparent walls for ease in monitoring students. ìElimination of spaces that are not subject to random or constant visual supervision, and functional locks and other devices to discourage opportunistic crime and vandalismî assist in providing security (Kliment, 2001, p. 100).

The addition of security cameras outside and inside school buildings are becoming standard equipment for monitoring school safety. Outdoor lighting and surveillance use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) are used among school sites (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. 95) Telephones are being added to classrooms to facilitate communication in emergencies, and in certain instances, security officers are used as a deterrent for unwanted behaviors. Although such features are becoming necessary considerations, school design can influence whether students and educators feel they are in a learning environment or a corrective facility.

Collaboration

According to Rachel Tompkins, executive director, Rural School and Community Trust:

The best schools are designed when architects, planners and engineers spend a lot of time talking to people in the community about how they view their school, and what they think about the school as an institution in the community-not just as a place where children go, but where adults are involved. (Rivero, 2004, p. 26).

Planning for school facilities has often been concentrated at the district level, including a committee that may or may not consist of members outside the school or even outside the central office administration; however, arguments are made for the recent advantages cooperative planning can give. Aside from the physical attributes, aesthetic attributes also result from cooperative planning in school designs.

When school systems begin to renovate or build, the process usually begins with a need. Systems may not perceive the renovations, the re-building, or the building as opportunities for shaping the environment, but rather repairing or maintaining the environment. Usually expressed by administrators, ìWe took care of our critical needs first - prioritized.î This common response is usually representative of ideologies not only of administrators, but of a typical committee approach to renovations, commonly consisting of the system level administration, facilities administration, and principals of the buildings being renovated, in consultation with the architects (Jones, 1981). Plans are made to renovate and add based on immediate needs. Certainly no fault is found in taking care of such needs. They are crucial to keeping the environment functional and safe. However, could such projects be perceived as opportunities for reshaping the environment or revamping rather than just renovating? Unfortunately funding may be perceived as a barrier for altering the environment, especially when the building repairs are extensive. The irony in such perceptions is that school designs can be planned to assist with revamping and reshaping the environment, while taking care of necessitated repairs and not always costing additional monies. In fact, research examples suggest that when building projects are designed with the community, principals, teachers, and parents, funds can be saved. Although administrators planning facility designs usually feel compelled to fix whatever problems exist, and sometimes with the constraints of a tax driven budget, they could gain support by expanding their input and viewing it as an opportunity to begin shaping and changing the facility in a way that could continue when additional funds and opportunities come along. This seeks a support group for not only immediate ownership but also a possible commitment to longer and sustained planning.

Research making facility planning a ìpeopleís processî is cited by suggesting the important connection between parents and their community with schools. Schools involving extensive community planning are being referred to as neighborhoods of education. Planning steps for creating new or remodeled schools cannot be avoided in facility design to meet the ever changing learner needs and desired educational outcomes, while including or transforming them into educational neighborhoods (Hill, 1997). As a result of parental help and community involvement the largest capital campaign in Missouriís history resulted in a successful community addition of a performing arts and athletic center. The success was attributed to the participation rate that came from early planning and involvement of parents and the community. Parents and students were actively involved in the beginning with the design process and the needs assessment, so all had ownership and a shared mission (Chivetta, 1998). Reiterating again the advantages of ownership, one district reported that as a result of being included students have taken ownership in the building, and no acts of vandalism have occurred (Shorr, 2004).

In Becoming a Voice in School Facilities: Taking the Lead, Hubler acknowledges that principals and teachers are often omitted from school facilities planning (1997). He supports the concept of school level personnel contributing their wealth of experience and knowledge and playing an active role when it comes to designing facilities. The results of shared planning present no surprises for teachers, administrators, parents, and community.

Contractors and architects tend to fall in love with the exciting features they can design into a school building....But when teachers and administrators finally come in, those whiz bang features donít always work. The staff never quite gets what they thought theyíd get,îaccording to Granto, Superintendent of Niagra Falls. (Shorr, 2004, p. 19)

Mason, an architect, expresses agreement for such proactive shared planning for eliminating problems in the beginning by stating, ì The strategy of building community through small-school programming and design is minimizing-and in some cases erasing-many problems schools faceî (Rivero, 2004, p. 20).

Strategy building can also be used in larger scale planning to ensure adequate features. A shared decision making effort on the part of Granto saved his district a million dollars when it was undergoing a major facility and construction project. As a strategy for planning appropriate features through collaborative efforts, he had a mock classroom built before the initial project. It was remarkable at the buy-in from those involved (Shorr, 2004). ìAs students, teachers, janitors, fire safety reps, IT staff, and others filed through the fake classroom, the complaints and suggestions started to roll in....Teachers found that the TV monitors were placed at the wrong angleî along with other similar and significant problems identified and eliminated early (Shorr, 2004, p. 19). The most impressive aspect discovered was an incorrect sizing and space of a wall in relation to a ceiling conduit, which saved the district ìhundreds of thousands of dollars due to the recognition that it was in the wrong spotî (Shorr, 2004, p. 19). Granto states, ìWe planned our work and worked our planî (Shorr, 2004, p. 19). Benefits of shared planning, aside from a sense of ownership, include a significant reduction in complaints once the building is completed. Collaborative benefits define its purpose as ìa result of forces placed upon a buildingís proposal and design, but it also is the result of peopleís desiresî (Ensuring Adaptability, 2002, p. 150). Having a sense of ownership in the process brings satisfaction to all participating

Although, ìthere is still a need to show the effects of more community and client involvement in the learning process as well as in the design of the learning environments which house themî (Taylor, 2000, p. 39) collaboration is a recognized asset to facility design economically. Economic benefits are found when costly problems are omitted in the beginning and resources are collaborated. ìMost traditional schools are used ...for about 16 percent of the total time.... All factors taken together indicate ... an enormous wastage of public funds in the traditional use of school facilitiesî (Kennedy, 1979, p. 15). When school designs are planned collaboratively they can contribute to ìflexible spaces that serve multiple functions [and] can reduce square footage and save construction costsî (Ensuring Adaptability, 2003, p. 150).

Discussion

Trends outlined include economic considerations for facility designs and emphases on aesthetics, technology, collaboration and safety. These considerations have been identified as trends of consideration because they are recurrent in literature and suggest a tendency for continuation in further designs. Additional trends can be identified by categorizing specific features of design areas. Design features are not only physical features but functional features identified by school programs and additional uses of the building. The following content of the literature review includes additional design features as they relate to the physical setting and the functional setting of design features. Additional benefits of collaborative efforts are discussed as functional features, represented through social and instructional opportunities.

Classroom Space & Furnishings

Sometimes utilizing technology as a source, the demand for flexibility in the classroom is evolving through student labs and learning centers. Labs are usually larger classrooms with multimedia, tables, and centers to offer flexibility in instruction and work spaces. Students can have opportunities to work together or alone. Almost all reform efforts, ìbest practicesî research, and grant funding opportunities have components of individual instruction, or at least small group instruction through listening, visual, or reading centers as well as participatory and skills -concentrated learning. To accommodate small group instruction, design features must be flexible and mobile if not already permanent designs of the classroom.

Especially in situations of progressive, individualized, or pragmatic learning, classroom spaces are representing a different kind of workspace. ìIt is our expectation that future elementary school classrooms will contain child-size carrels that accommodate a range of different self-directed activities (writing, computer work)î (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. xxviii). For visual and acoustical benefits and to allow for small and large group activities, classroom shapes can be varied from traditional square to the L-shape or trapezoid and partitions can be utilized (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. xxviii). Given the research by Gardner and the multiple intelligence theory, a renewed emphasis on art and music education has emerged for contained and specialized rooms instead of regular classrooms (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. xxix). Additionally specialized classrooms for reading and literacy programs, time-out rooms and special education classes have been implemented features.

Similar to classroom space, furniture should also support the instructional and developmental needs of each classroom. These needs can vary from grade-level to grade-level. For instance, in elementary classrooms cubbies are a furniture necessity for personal items if students do not have lockers and ideally designed on a childís scale. Likewise, these needs will also vary for instruction. Tables instead of desks are options for many labs, with consideration to size and storage.

Technology

Technology impacts educational design in virtually every aspect from curriculum to safety and from organizational to managerial purposes.

No longer will experimentation be confined to the science lab. Instead, a school buildingís learning spaces will become all- purpose laboratories in which hands-on and virtual experimentation of many different, interdisciplinary sorts can be carried on. Students-employing personal digital assistants (PDAs) that combine MP3, DVD, cellphone, and laptop computer functions in a single device- will communicate with electronic resources containing vast amounts of information. (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. xxiv)

The emphasis of technology results in designs no longer implemented only in the media center but saturated with additional computers and labs large enough to accommodate regular classroom sizes and with Internet access. ìSaturation means ... a computer on every desk, and each linked to a network within the school that connects to networks beyond the school. When schools contemplate new buildings or major renovations, they should anticipate this saturationî (McCain, 1996, p. 15).

The impact of technology directly affects the physical environment. Saturation brings about various demands for the school environment. They take up space, emit electromagnetic radiation, create ergonomic stress, have to connect to networks, use electricity, and generate heat (McCain, 1996, p. 15-16). Positive effects of saturation include the contemporary instructional benefits. Many countries have facilitated studentsí direct involvement with technology very early. In France teachers and administration are not the only typical users of communication via e-mail. Classes are encouraged to communicate via email and student written activities include word processing at the primary grade level. Satellite television is also used for online lessons and school news (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001, p. 42).

After thousands and millions of dollars are put into infrastructure, support is a critical factor for effective results. Without qualified technicians computers and their function will be limited. Administration, technicians, and staff are valuable mixtures for technology planning and its implementation and support. According to McCain the support mechanism for effective technology features has four main aspects:

1. Support for those using technology: initial training, encouragement, and problem solving.

2. Support to the hardware and software: routine maintenance, recovery from equipment or software

3. Administration: inventory control, password and other security administration, software license management, and maintenance of technical documentation.

4. Maintaining technical staff proficiency: Formal and informal training...to maintain proficiency with current products and acquire proficiency with new products. (1996, p. 87)

Organization of Classroom and Administrative Offices

Classrooms can be organized by grade-level, academic discipline, or in clusters. Certain districts are designing clustered spaces for multiple groups of students to share resources and gather to work on projects, offering a communal advantage for students. The concept allows students from different classes to work on joint projects and students are not always confined to the traditional classroom or peer group (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. xxviii). Classroom designs could be designed around communal spaces and organized by student preferences, including various student workshops. Placing grade-levels next to each other for ease of transition is another alternative. A particular example found in a case study of a Sweden school illustrates classrooms organized for independent study in which no standard rows exist of classrooms. Instead instructional facilities link to the library. The school is structurally built by a beam system to allow change for different purposes as they occur (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001, p. 66).

Organizations for principalsí offices include spaces close and easily accessible to the public, while remaining offices vary according to their function. Administrative offices are not uncommonly designed so the principal has a private toilet, carpeting, windows, and is placed in close proximity to the conference room (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. 7). Volunteers and specialists spaces, such as social workers, school psychologists, guidance, and nurses, are also considerations for individual designs and offices according to their role. Guidance offices are sometimes placed closer to students to facilitate on-going relationships with students. They might include a private conference area for students, parents, and counselor. Assistant principalsí offices vary in location, either closer to departments or closer to the principal. If the school has a family resource center, office space can be designed as part of the center for the family resource coordinator.

Student Communal Spaces and School Grounds

Communal spaces are becoming an important aspect in design in order to develop studentsí social abilities. Spaces can be established simply to allow children places to interact or designed more instructionally oriented to incorporate learning. Outdoor and indoor connections to spaces to promote gathering and interaction assist with social developmental skills.

A design represented through case studies of schools from various countries included many types of communal spaces for students having both social and instructional purposes. A Turkish example given described a communal area in which students are able to care for pets and a garden while they learn and enjoy the environment. Another case study in Japan exemplifies a communal space incorporating instructional purposes designed as an outdoor learning environment:

Designed to encourage respect for, and interest in, the environment ... allowing children to experience nature from an early age, attractive Gardens are set in the court outside the science and art and craft classrooms. In the playground, there is a stream, landscaped hillocks and a sand play area. (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001, p. 14)

The same school developed a garden for learning on a roof with flowers, grass, and rice to attract many types of insects and species for studying (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001, p. 14). Although a majority of schools have communal areas, the degree of aesthetic development and the connection to instruction varies in extremities. Having a standard cafeteria to represent a communal area contrasts quite differently with a school cafeteria located within a mall setting where students have various options to dine. Likewise, having a flower bed designed around the school entrance is quite different from the establishment of an outdoor garden and landscape used for instructional purposes, or an indoor garden with trees and fountains as part of communal areas. In addition to aesthetic features, communal features can have dual practical functions. Cafeterias have been designed to serve many purposes in the past (Bogner, Clapp, Herrick, & McLeary, 1956), commonly a part of the gymnasium. As community and partnerships emerge the cafeteriaís use is primarily for school functions as they relate to dinners and parent or community events (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. 7).

School grounds can be a play area or instructional area depending on its use, with various designs and purposes. Gardens and outdoor environments are not limited to organizational maintenance but can be maintained by students, teachers, and community. Many schools use studentsí artwork to create murals and attractive landscaping features. Playgrounds landscaped with openness and utilizing plants serve as imaginary boundaries and educational experiences. In Italy a school has provided educational experiences using four outdoor classrooms, one of which was a botanical garden (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001, p. 75).

Teacher Facilities

Teacher spaces do not have to be thought of only as a teacher desk. Workstations are the emergent descriptor, providing teachers places to work with students and conference with both students and parents (Beaudin et al., 2004, p. xxviii). Designing teacher workplaces accessible and comfortable are among the strategies used for designing classrooms representative of typical, behavioral, teacher-student relationships. Using designs for high visibility of students facilitates ease for monitoring the learning environment, including placement of furnishings and design factors contributing to easy instructional facilitation. A consideration of a teacher-lecture auditorium is found in the various designs that either ìpositions all students forward to view the teacher standing in front [; utilizes a] lecture room, with rows of students around a lecture stage [;or utilizes a] ...lecture room that provides student seating in a horseshoe-shaped pattern with the teacher in the centerî (Focusing on Human Factors, 2003, p.1). Teacher workplaces designed to be shared or private can influence aesthetic comforts, depending on individual preferences of each schoolís environment. Designs reflective of professional work areas contribute to professional environments and give implied respect for teachers and their profession.

Functional Use: Instructional Strategies and Instructional Opportunities

The extent to which the environment is flexible, innovative, and designed for cooperative, exploratory learning represents an instructional strategy resulting from functional design features. Although features have been discussed previously as they relate to the physical environment, not all features are physical. Functional features of school design include the many functions and use of the environment to represent what is taking place in the environment. Functional features include instructional strategies. Scheduling, teaching methods, or any feature identifying the use of the environment for organizing instruction to shape and broaden learning opportunities, are considered features of the functional environment.

Philosophy and the roles of educators, parents, and community members are shaping 21^st Century schools in ways Dewey , and other democratic, progressive and pragmatists would have found pleasing in the functional setting (Dewey, 1916). Unique learning experiences represent a functional feature found in school designs and are recently increasing in popularity. Collaboration between a public charter school and a museum made for a unique opportunity. ìThe Henry Ford Academy is a 400-student public charter school located at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. The school was designed to be integrated with the museum and was built for 20% the cost of a comparable stand-alone high school. This collaborative effort has created an ideal connection of school and museum environmentsî (Rivero, 2004, p. 22). As an alternative setting for struggling students ìone Minnesota District has four small high schools and four alternative schools in shopping malls (Focusing on Human Factors, 2003, p.1).î Another example quite different from the usual traditional facilities:

Classrooms connected by halls ...and architecture based on the factory model and evolved to serve a teacher-desk-subject-textbook-graded-lecture curriculum, is the Mini City. Mini City has been a development for the past seventeen years in a nontraditional context and ìrepresents extensions to the community at large.î (An Instructional Neighborhood, 2004)

Mini City is a ìconstructivist viewî model for learning created for third and fourth graders. The city simulates real life with spaces created large enough for two to five students, two adults, and models of places and buildings found in towns. In it students design the curriculum and construct their own form of government and communication, newspapers, television broadcast, and other real life simulations (An Instructional Neighborhood, 2004). Such infrastructures facilitate the constructive approach to student-centered learning.

Collaborative partnerships are functions of the environment offering learning opportunities for students. Demonstrated by a business partnership, educators relied on industry advancements to train students and establish ìëSchoolhouse of Quality,í meant to engage business community to help in the planning of new career and technical schoolsî (Cutshall, 2003, p.19). As a result, students are given real world experience in their functional environment and schools do not have to spend extensive funds in physical features to create a learning environment or lab simulating the process. Another partnership of the functional environment using the same concept gives students access to ìcurrent equipment while building relationships with young people who could one day choose to join a companyís workforceî (Cutshall, 2003, p. 19). Equipment that may not be possible for students to experience as a physical feature in the school, due to its nature or costs, is provided for a functional use by the business collaboration. Therefore, students experience curriculum and learning in various ways, while making valuable, networking, and relational connections with prospective employers they may not have otherwise.

Scheduling is a functional feature used in the instructional setting for organizing the educational environment. Through collaborative efforts a school sought to revamp its curriculum and use facility design to support the preferred way students were to be taught. The school adopted a modified block schedule as a feature to allow for small group instruction in particular subjects using half the students during different subject periods. With the understanding that a typical design would not be appropriate and the design had to accommodate for frequent transitions, the school staff planned with the architect in the initial design to make this approach possible. As a result, the final program was a success (Bradley and Protheroe, 2003).

Other similar approaches to the functional environment include the use of team-teaching, multi-age classrooms, and departmentalization. Innovative designs function as instructional features used strategically to teach by using the buildings as instruments of learning. The design elements ìwindmills, eco-ponds and fire sprinkler controls, for example, become teaching tools, as well as architectural elementsî (Cunningham, 2002, p.1). For schools using solar systems in design for efficiency, ìthe technology can be incorporated into a schoolís ëeco-educationí.... Everything within the environment is a potentially interactive learning tool....Rather than teach third graders from a science book about eco-ponds...let the students learn by spending an afternoon exploring the schoolyard pondî (Cunningham, 2002, p.1-2). In preserving a schools rural heritage, a wine press was restored in Portugal and vines were planted so students can observe the cycle of wine production (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001, p. 62).

The practical applications of functional features can offer students opportunities to gain experience and knowledge of how to use the content they are taught. Labs, outdoor learning environments, and alternative learning sites applied as functional features of design make learning interactive and meaningful.

Functional Use: Community and Social Opportunities

The function of educational design features creates many social opportunities for students, community, and parents in recent designs. ìEducational research calls for removing some of the traditional barriers between school and nonschool life and between school and community. Students achieve better in an environment where lifelong learning is a community value, where everyone is a learner, and where school is central to the life and learning of the community, accessible beyond traditional school hoursî (Bingler, Quinn, and Sullivan, 2003, p.8).

The innovative community features for schools in the 21^st Century are both instructional and social opportunities primarily offered through partnerships. Partnerships in the functional environment are evident as a result of cooperative planning for community and businesses. Many school designs and arrangements done collaboratively have become integrated to make schools the center of their communities. ìSchools as centers of their communities achieve this status in either of two ways: They more effectively integrate with the community, or they extend the learning environment to use the communityís full range of resourcesî (Bingler, Quinn, and Sullivan, 2003, p.11).

Beginning to emerge from school community integration through cooperative planning is a full service community school. Examples include full service schools in which the facilities are used to offer total or full community services. It is defined as a school ì open to students , families, and the community before, during, and after school, seven days a week, all year long...and jointly operated and financed through a partnership between the school system and one or more community agenciesî (Dryfoos, 2002, p.1). Full service schools usually do not plan the school as an extension to or for the community, but bring community services to the needs of students and parents. ìA family support center helps families with child rearing, employment, housing, and other services. Medical, dental, and mental health services are also available on siteî (Dryfoos, 2002, p.1). Such schools are usually located in disadvantaged communities and in addition to on-site health and dental care, parenting classes, adult education classes, child care, and similar services typically sought from the community are also provided.

Although full service schools are usually to address socio-economic needs of the area, collaborations are occurring across every economic level to address community interest and provide additional opportunities through the functional environment for students, community, and business contributors. ì By pooling funding sources or passing a bond issue for joint -use facilities, schools and communities can obtain needed buildings that neither could afford on its ownî (Tucker and Zahn, 1997, p.2). Schools can extend their hours and ìpermit senior citizens to use the gym and health facilities during non-school hoursî (Bingler, Quinn and Sullivan, 2003, p.12). ìBusiness leaders who contribute to a building fund may want to rent or borrow the facility subsequently for a corporate conference. A space where students study computer science in the morning may host a CEO presentation that eveningî (Ensuring Adaptability, 2003, p.150). Such collaborations offer students and community members opportunities and experiences they would not possibly have otherwise. Additional examples include day care facilities and libraries designed for public use. These designs serve both education and community efforts and usually allow extended opportunities.

Dryfoos describes an interesting example of using facility features for integrating and meeting the needs of the community when a particular school was having problems getting parents involved and decided to ask parents what they needed the most. The parents replied with an answer stating they wanted a Laundromat. They did not have a Laundromat in the community, so washing machines and dryers were added to an area in the school. Parents are then reported to have come ìin droves.î another response to community interests occurred in response to a recreational interest. Using the outdoor learning environment, a school added a miniature golf course since one did not exist in the community to make it a part of the learning and recreational experiences for students (Dryfoos, 2002).

Discussion

The main two areas discussed in the literature review of the functional environment are surveyed in and reported in the findings for the following: Collaboration; Instructional/Social Program Services and Opportunities; Classroom Instructional Opportunities; Instructional Opportunities and Educational Programs; Organization of Instruction; and Community or Social Use.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Meanings are constructed by human beings as they interact with the world they are learning to understand (Crotty, 1998). Therefore, humans are constantly constructing their educational environment through design features and program functions. The constructs occurring in school design and the various features occurring as a result of social constructs were identified for Georgia schools in a survey. Questions used in the survey provided information about design features. The information gained will be a basis for helping educational planners to know the percentages of schools in Georgia utilizing certain features. Using this study as a benchmark, further studies may be completed to understand how these designs form educational settings and might possibly improve student outcomes and achievement. The data reported in the survey was used to study the topic: What are the school facility features in Georgia?

Research Questions

1. What are the existing educational facility design features in Georgiaís schools?

2. How do these features and trends compare with those found in the Virginia study?

Population and Sample

The population for the study included local administrators or principals of public and private schools in Georgia. Stratifiers such as race, age, SES, and gender were not used for sample selection since the purpose was to identify the most common and emerging features of all educational facilities. The population included individuals in approximately 2,200 schools in 180 school districts. Participantsí requests were sent to leaders in public schools as identified by Georgia Department of Education and private schools identified by the Georgia Independent School Association, (GISA).

Methods

A survey used by the University of Virginia to identify design features was modified as an on-line survey and used to identify features for Georgiaís schools. The on-line survey, designed using QuestionPro.com (see Appendix A), was used to determine the types of features and trends occurring in the physical and functional school environments in Georgia, as outlined in the survey by the University of Virginia and literature review for the University of Georgia study. The survey includes contents from the literature review. Considerations for categorizing features of the survey were sensitive to similarity, relativity to topic of categorical features, and features already outlined categorically by the Virginia study. Consideration was also given in regard to technical modifications necessary for designing the survey for completion electronically.

Data Collection and Analysis

Letters were mailed to all Georgia school districts requesting and encouraging participation in survey. An electronic reminder followed mailed letters to superintendents. Each participant received an electronic invitation giving an Internet address for accessing and completing the confidential survey. Administrative participants consisting of local, school administrators were contacted individually and requested to complete survey using services provided by Question Pro.com, a software provider. Surveys were designed to be completed and returned to researcher during a two to four week interval. School systems in Georgia were surveyed to gain information and understanding about trends of school design features existing. Information from the surveys was gathered and calculated using percentages and reported in the aggregate. The data were analyzed to determine any possible relationships and to interpret current trends and features of design occurring in the physical and functional aspects of school facilities. Since no other comparisons were currently available aside from Virginiaís study, comparisons of matching features identified were made between Georgia and Virginia. Summaries report on the emergent trends and on the design features currently utilized in Georgiaís schools, with a comparison of Virginiaís utilization of the same features. The comparison is presented in two-way tables for organizing and summarizing the data using two categorical variables, represented as features used most frequently by Georgia and Virginia.

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

Introduction

One week prior to sending participant requests, letters were mailed to district superintendents informing them of the study and purpose. Principals, headmasters, and headmistresses in Georgia were then electronically mailed requests to participate in the study. Over 2,000 requests were sent. Of those sent 385 possible responders viewed by accessing the survey link, 230 began the survey, and 71 respondents completed the survey (18% of surveys viewed). A total of 42 school districts across the state responded. Of the districts responding 50% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, 61.9% were reported as being majority Caucasian, 28.5 % majority African-American, as indicated in state reported data (Georgia Department of Education, 2005). Data from all participants were recorded and analyzed for each question individually using the electronic on-line software provider QuestionPro.com. Not all questions have the same number of responses, depending on whether all questions were answered by each participant. The accuracy and validity are assumed correct for calculations since QuestionPro.com is a professional and research academic entity specializing in surveys and data reporting.

Other than demographic information, aesthetic questions regarding personal opinion of satisfaction, and open-ended questions for recommendations of survey improvements or comments, all questions were check boxes and consistent in format for each category. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for each question; the percentages and frequencies were used to determine the relationship of features analyzed, since almost 300 question choices and responses were possible. Features were analyzed in categorical groups for the following categories: Demographics; Energy Efficient, Flexible, and Sustained Designs; Aesthetics; Safety; Collaboration; Classroom Space and Furnishings; Technology; Organization of Classrooms and Offices; Student Communal Space; School Grounds; Teacher Facilities; Instructional/Social Program Services and Opportunities; Classroom Instructional Opportunities; Instructional Opportunities and Educational Programs; Organization of Instruction; and Community and Social Use. Quartiles were used for the numerical description of distributions, measuring the center and measuring spread when reporting data. The first quartile represents one-quarter, the third quartile represents more than three quarters (75%), and the second quartile is the median, which is larger than 50% of the observations, but less than 75%.

The data were analyzed using the following criteria for determining and reporting consistent results: report existing features that occur in at least 50% of schools; report school features utilized in at least 50% of new schools (schools built in the last 5 years); report features surveyed but not occurring or existing in at least 50% of schools; report features occurring in at least 50% of schools identified as more than 5 years old; report features occurring in over 50% of schools previously, but not occurring in 50% of the schools built in the last 5 years.

When reporting two main considerations were given for excluding the not applicable and not enough information answer choices, when calculating frequency and percentages: 1) In any category with over 50% of schools exceeding 15% of responses for not applicable or not enough information, only yes and no responses were used to report percentages of existing features. 2) If features were not applicable to all grade levels (elementary and secondary) answer choices for not applicable and not enough information were omitted from reported percentages of existing features. Given these two considerations, only yes and no responses, giving implied applicability, were used for reporting. Elimination of answer choices were specified in reporting of each category.

Demographics

The participants represented mainly public school principals located primarily in rural and suburban areas. As noted in Table 1, responses indicate the age of schools almost evenly distributed among schools built within the last 5 years, schools built from 1985-1999, and schools built between 1950-1969, representing the population by totaling over 75% of the responses given. Schools represented in the data set are approximately 58% elementary, 23.6% middle school, 12.5% high school, and .055% Pre-kindergarten through grade 12.

Table1.

Frequency and Percentage for Demographics

Survey Items	N	%
Public Schools	81	92.05
Independent Schools	5	5.68
Other	2	2.27

Urban	9	10.34
Rural	35	40.23
Suburban	43	49.43

Opened in last 5 years (00-04)	23	24.21
Built between 1985-1999	28	29.47
Built between 1970-1984	11	11.58
Built between 1950-1969	27	28.42
Built prior to 1950	6	6.32

Energy Efficient, Flexible and Sustained Designs

Responses totaled 74; however, answers including not enough information and not applicable were excluded in data analysis due to increased frequency with a median of 14. The following features were indicated in at least 50% of schools: central air conditioning (81%), air conditioning in most classrooms (78%), exhaust vents placed in ceiling for one way air flow (73%), day lighting (61%), and less porous materials such as masonry and concrete for moisture prevention (54%).

Using cross tabulations, further analysis was done to determine features occurring in over 50 % of the 17 new schools built within the last 5 years. Features indicated in the second and third quartile include using less porous materials such as masonry and concrete for moisture prevention, day lighting, air-conditioning in most classrooms, and central air conditioning. Central air conditioning was reported in 100% of schools built in the last 5 years.

Areas surveyed but occurring in less than 50% of the total 74 schools include air conditioning in office only, raised floor used as the plenum for air supply, solar panels, building placement, roofing considerations, geothermal heating, recycling programs, utilities placed in paths for minimal disruption of services and costs when additions are added, CO2 monitors, and humidity sensors (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Frequency and Percentage for Energy Use, Flexible and Sustainable Design

Feature		Yes	No	Not Enough Information	Not Applicable
Central Air Conditioning	N	60	14	0		0
	%	81.08	18.92	0		0
Air conditioning units in most classrooms	N	52	15	1		6
	%	70.27	20.27	1.35		8.11
Air conditioning in offices only	N	9	58	1		6
	%	12.16	78.38	1.35		8.1
Exhaust vents placed in ceiling for one way air flow.	N	43	16	14		2
	%	57.33	21.33	18.67		2.67
(table continues)
Table 2. Energy Use, Flexible and Sustained Designs (continued)
Raised floor used as the plenum for air supply	N	4	56	10		4
	%	5.41	75.68	13.51		5.41

Day lighting	N	41	26	5		2
	%	55.41	35.14	6.76		2.7

Solar panels	N	2	66	3		3
	%	2.7	89.19	4.05		4.05

Building placement	N	14	26	26		8
	%	18.92	35.14	35.14		10.81

Less porous materials for moisture prevention	N	38	16	15		5
	%	51.35	21.62	20.27		6.76

Roofing considerations (materials for reducing heat)	N	28	33	10		3
	%	37.84	44.59	13.54		4.05

Geothermal heating	N	2	57	12		3
	%	2.7	77.03	16.22		4.05

Recycling programs (ex. water)	N	13	50	9		3
	%	17.33	66.67	12		4

Utilities placed for minimal disruption	N	27	23	22		2
	%	36.49	31.08	29.73		2.7

CO2 monitors	N	8	50	12		4
	%	10.81	67.57	16.22		5.41

Humidity sensors	N	12	47	11		4
	%	16.22	63.51	14.86		5.41

Aesthetics

The following questions found in Table 3 were optional questions of opinion regarding overall interest in the school environment. Seventy-two percent reported having input in design choices and 70% reported being satisfied with interiors and furnishings. Ninety percent reported facilities adequate for learning and supporting the school philosophy and mission. Eighty-four percent reported the safety features adequate and 64% reported being satisfied with outdoor spaces. Sixty-nine percent reported the school as not overcrowded. Cross tabulation for schools built in the last 5 years indicated 100% affirmation for all areas, except for having input in design choices (81%), satisfaction with interior colors and furnishings (94%), and schools reported as not overcrowded (81%).

Table 3.

Frequency and Percentage for Aesthetics

Questions	Yes	No
Do you have input and choices for school designs?	50	19
%	72.46	27.54
Are you satisfied with your schoolís interiors (colors, furnishings, etc.)?
N	48	21
%	69.57	30.43
Is the facility adequate for learning?
N	62	7
%	89.86	10.14
Is the school environment reflective of school philosophies and mission?
N	62	7
%	89.86	10.14
Are safety features currently used by the school adequate?
N	58	11
%	84.06	15.94
Is your school overcrowded?
N	22	48
%	31.43	68.57
Are you satisfied with your schoolís appearance outdoors?
N	42	24
%	63.64	36.36

Safety and Security

For the safety and security section answer choices reveal whether the features were recently installed or built in the last 5 years, more than 5 years old or not installed at all. At least 74 responses were recorded for each question. Responses represent the most frequent safety features in schools as defined by the second and third quartiles and were calculated by using the affirmed percentages reported for features installed in the last 5 years and features more than 5 years old. Of the 74 schools surveyed the barcode system for libraries (92%), walkie talkies (89%), alarm systems (84%), and school bus security cameras (76%) are the features occurring in the third quartile (over 75% of schools). Features occurring at the second quartile include controlled access to building (70%), strategic positioning of offices (67%), one-way door locks (67%), modified restrooms (59%), and extra wide corridors (58%).

Over 50% of schools surveyed reported the following security features as not implemented: perimeter fencing, metal detectors, photo badges, police or uniformed officers, school security cameras, telephones, glass or transparent walls, and modified lockers. The only feature reported older than 5 years old in 50% of all schools responding is alarm systems.

Using cross tabulations, further analysis was done to determine features of the 17 schools built in the last 5 years. Results indicated the features occurring in over 50 % of the new schools built within the last 5 years are telephones, school bus security cameras, and modified restrooms for ease in monitoring. Glass windows and transparent walls were utilized in 47% of schools built in the last 5 years. Features implemented in schools built in the last five years occurring in the third quartile (occurring in over 75% of schools recently built) include alarm systems, walkie-talkies, computerized barcodes, strategic positioning of offices, extra-wide corridors, controlled access to buildings, and one-way door locks (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Frequency and Percentage for Safety and Security

Feature		Not in	Last	More than	Not Enough
		Building	5 Years	5 years old	Information
Perimeter Fencing	N	38	13	21	2
	%	51.35	17.57	28.38	2.7

Metal detectors	N	70	3	1	0
	%	94.59	4.05	1.35	0

Alarm systems	N	11	25	37	1
	%	14.86	33.78	50	1.35

Photo ID for students	N	58	12	4	0
	%	78.38	16.22	5.41	0

Uniformed officers or resource officer	N	49	19	6	0
	%	66.22	25.68	8.11	0

One-way door locks	N	23	21	29	1
	%	31.08	28.38	39.19	1.35

Security cameras	N	46	19	11	0
	%	60.53	25	14.47	0

Computerized barcode system	N	5	38	31	1
	%	6.67	50.67	41.33	1.33

Strategic positioning of Offices	N	23	24	26	1
	%	31.08	32.43	35.14	1.35

Extra-wide corridors	N	27	22	21	4
	%	36.49	29.73	28.38	5.41

Walkie-talkies	N	8	40	26	0
	%	10.81	54.05	35.14	0

Telephones in classrooms	N	40	23	10	1
	%	54.05	31.08	13.51	1.35

School bus security cameras	N	15	36	22	3
	%	19.74	47.37	28.95	3.95

Modified lockers	N	57	6	6	5
	%	77.03	8.11	8.11	6.7
Modified restrooms	N	29	24	20		1
	%	39.19	32.43	27.03		1.35

Controlled access to building	N	19	25	27		3
	%	25.68	33.78	36.49		4.05
Use of glass and transparent walls	N	45	16	13		1
	%	60	21.33	17.33		1.33

Collaboration

At least 88 responses were recorded for collaborative related questions. Occurring in the third quartile, responses indicate the main sources of funding for facilities are state capital outlay and local funds, with local being the greatest contributor. In the second quartile fund raisers and federal resources were reported as sources for funds (see Table 5).

For community use the main function of the facilities is for regular instructional purposes in which the extended use of facilities to the community beyond school hours is made available to the public on a scheduled basis, either free of charge or for a minimal fee (85%). For initial planning of school design participants indicated the majority of planning is done by the board of education, superintendent, facility administrator, principal, and architect, all occurring in the third quartile with the board members, superintendents, principals, and architects in the 90^th percentiles. Occurring in the second quartile are contracted consultants, teachers, parents, and community. Results are illustrated in Table 5.

With 74 responses recorded, planning interior furnishings did not indicate the same person making decisions in at least 50% of schools, but interior decisions were reported to be more frequently made by principals (42%) as illustrated in Table 6. Results report technology decisions are primarily made by principal or local administrator (85%), instructional technologists on campus (77%), instructional technologist off campus (77%), superintendent (69%), board members (57%), and teachers (53%) as illustrated in Table 7.

Using cross tabulations, further analysis was done to determine if features of community planning varied with schools built in the last 5 years. In schools built prior to 2000, 100% of board members had been reported to participate in design planning with superintendents and principals in the 90^th percentile; in schools built in the last 5 years percentages decreased while facility administrators and contracted consultants participation increased.

Table 5.

Frequency and Percentage for Funding Collaboration

Feature		Yes	No	Not Enough Information	Not Applicable
State Capital Outlay	N	69	10	6	3
	%	78.41	11.36	6.82	3.41

Federal	N	47	32	7	3
	%	52.81	35.96	7.87	3.37