EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES IN GEORGIAíS SCHOOLS
by
JENNIFER LANDRUM HADDEN
(Under the Direction of C. KENNETH
TANNER ñ School Design, Planning, and Research Laboratory - http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl
)
ABSTRACT
School
facility design features influence the learning process and are central
concerns of educational planners.
This study identified the features existing in Georgiaís schools to
determine Georgia trends in school design. Two main study areas were the schoolsí physical environment
and functional environment. The following categories were analyzed: Energy Efficient, Flexible, and
Sustainable Designs; Aesthetics; Safety; Collaboration; Classroom Space and
Furnishings; Technology; Organization of Classroom and Administrative Offices;
Student Communal Spaces and School Grounds; Teacher Facilities;
Instructional/Social Program Services and Opportunities; Classroom
Instructional Opportunities; Instructional Opportunities and Educational
Programs; Organization of Instruction; and Community or Social Use. Seventy-one
participants completed the electronic survey providing responses indicating
trends occurring in Georgiaís schools. At least 50% of the trends found for
Georgiaís schools through voluntary responses to the survey were also found in
a comparison study in Virginia.
Descriptive data of the open-ended responses were categorized as the
most unique features, the features liked least, and the features liked
most. Recommendations include that
the study results be used as a benchmark for individual districts and schools
in regard to facility planning.
Representing over 50% of features to occur for each category
surveyed, four prominent recommendations were suggested as benchmarks:
Collaboration (Planning, Funding, and Technology); Safety and Security;
Aesthetic Considerations; and Technology.
Further design features recommended for consideration in the future
include the following:
JENNIFER LANDRUM HADDEN
B.S., Valdosta State University, 1994
M.Ed., Augusta State University, 1998
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
ATHENS, GA
2005
Jennifer Landrum Hadden
All Rights Reserved
EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES IN GEORGIAíS SCHOOLS
Major
Professor: C. Kenneth
Tanner
Committee: Jo Blase
C.
Thomas Holmes
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso
Dean of Graduate School
May 2005
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 19th 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 21st 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 21st
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 21st 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 21st
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 21st 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 21st
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 21st
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 21st 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 90th 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 90th
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 |
|
|
|
|||||