Skip to content

21st Century Schools, 2011. Proper planning of school facilities is critical for all school districts no matter how large or small, whether major construction is in the works or the district is managing enrollment declines. When school districts properly plan for their school facilities they have better schools, more public use and higher value for public spending. This evaluation guide was designed for superintendents and school boards that are called on to develop or sign off on plans, but who generally may not have extensive experience with educational facility planning. It can also be used to help community members participate in high quality educational facility planning.

An Educational Facilities Master Plan is a written document that describes the school district’s real estate and capital improvement requirements and its strategy and school specific plans for meeting these requirements over a 6-10 year period. On the real estate side, educational facility master plan elements will address the space needs for schools, administration and logistics, including proposed site selection, school closings and consolidations, attendance boundary changes, leasing, joint use and co-locations. On the capital improvement side, educational facility master plan elements will include: the justification, scope, schedule and estimated cost for major repairs, modernization and new construction.

View link 

National School Climate Council. There is growing appreciation that school climate—the quality and character of school life—fosters children’s development, learning and achievement. School climate is based on the patterns of people’s experiences of school life; it reflects the norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching, learning and leadership practices, and organizational structures that comprise school life. The increased attention to school climate reflects both the concern for improving schools and the need for preparing students to address the myriad of challenges they will face in the 21st century.

View Report

By Angel Ford, November 24, 2014.

Educators are increasingly encouraged to use effective pedagogies for millennials.  This is not a bad thing in and of itself; however, many of the techniques are difficult at best in traditional classrooms with rows of desks and little space to move around.  If teachers are being asked to change the way they teach, it is imperative that the physical environment is adapted to empower them to use to do so effectively.

Teachers should not be expected to perform 21st century pedagogy in 20th century or even 19th century classrooms, which have not been adapted or renovated for updated pedagogy.  Unfortunately this occurs often.

Classrooms that are overcrowded with students or that are used to store copious amounts of curriculum or resources are not conducive to student movement and the flexibility that will increase teaching options.  Each student should have their own desk or place at a table, and ample space to move around for differing activities.

In order to increase the space that each student has, there are a number of solutions, including building bigger classrooms or reducing the number of students in current classrooms.  When these first two suggestions may not be viable options, the classroom space can be increased by simply not allowing classrooms to be used for storage.  Only the items needed for the current instruction should be in the classroom (Duncanson, 2014).  Clutter is working against academic achievement and should be eliminated (Duncanson, 2014).

In addition to creating more space, it is important to look at how to use the space effectively for the new pedagogies that are being encouraged.  One type of learning that has evidence of working well with millennials is team-based learning.  Millennials are relational and enjoy working in teams (Elmore, 2010).  In order for teachers to encourage team oriented projects, students need places conducive to group work.  Traditional classrooms can at times be rearranged for these activities; however, this is not the optimal solution.

Classrooms with more open space create opportunities for students to physically move around and form groups to work together.  This is just one of many reasons that open floor space has been shown to increase academic achievement scores (Duncanson, 2014).

Millennials also learn well through project based learning and active learning (Pearlman, 2010).   These types of learning call for space that will allow for different learning centers for the various aspects of project based learning and active learning.   Just as with team learning, in order to be able to encourage project based learning, teachers will need to be able to provide places for the students to work on projects and to move freely from one stage to the next.

“Open space changes classroom dynamics.” (Duncanson, 2014, p. 29).  Whatever can be done to open up classroom space to increase flexibility and allow more movement could be beneficial to academic learning.

As stated earlier, these are only a few of the types of learning that need to be considered when designing learning spaces for current and future learners.  One thing that is certain is that by continuing education in traditional classroom settings without changing the learning environment, the environment is being allowed to “dictate” what pedagogy the teacher must use. (Pearlman, 2010).

If teaching with pedagogy that calls for classroom flexibility and student movement is what is expected from our current educators, then it is imperative to examine and adjust the physical classrooms to make such 21st century teaching successful.

Printable Version of Blog Post

References

Duncanson E. (2014). Lasting effects of creating classroom space: A study of teacher behavior. The Journal of the International Society for Educational Planning, 21(3), 29-40.

Elmore, T. (2010). Generation iY: our last chance to save their future. Atlanta, GA: Poet Gardener.

Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, 116-147.

Angel Ford is a research assistant with Education Facilities Clearinghouse, where she is actively involved research and content management of the EFC Website.  She is also currently pursuing her Doctorate in Education with her intended dissertation topic to be in the area of educational facilities.

By Angel Ford, October 30, 2014.

Imagine you are a student walking into a building that you are forced to go to everyday to sit in a humid classroom that smells bad because the ceiling leaks and the air conditioning unit is not functional, with desks crammed so closely together that you feel the body heat of the person sitting next to you.  Imagine that your teacher is standing at the front of the room for an hour or more droning on, at times loudly because she is speaking over hallway noises as classroom doors are left open to increase airflow.

The teacher is telling you about new science innovations and advanced devices that are changing the world in which we live.  You hear bits and pieces, but are not making sense of what she is saying.  You would rather be at home surfing the Internet for the tablet and cell phone you want for Christmas.  You would rather be just about anywhere.

For a moment now, switch places and imagine you are the teacher in this same classroom and your desire is to get the students excited about technology; to tell them about the latest and greatest devices.  You know that many of these students have the devices you are teaching them about, some even have them in their pockets right now.  Last night you read an article about the importance of technology integration for your millennial students.  You learned that teachers in a different school in your same city are in a new building where the students don’t just hear about technology, they experience it through access to computers, tablets, the most updated software, and even a new 3D printer.

You feel bad for your students, but you don’t know what to do. Just adding the technology to this classroom would not help.  There is no room for computers and with the leaks in the ceiling how could you ensure electronics wouldn’t be damaged anyway?   A cough from one of your asthmatic students pulls you out of your internal pity party and you take a deep breath and go on with your lesson plans.  Frustrated and Defeated.

This may seem like an extreme case, but it may not be too far off for certain students and teachers.

With all the evidence about the importance of the physical learning environment, it is critical to consider the perspectives of those that are affected every day with substandard educational facilities and, yet, are still expected to learn or to teach.  Students in such buildings may dislike school and not be excited about learning.  Teachers in such schools may be frustrated with feeling they cannot provide engaging lessons for their 21st century learners.

There may not be easy solutions to fix the many schools in our nation that need fixing, but the evidence shows that the physical buildings do affect learning (Earthman & Lemasters, 2011) and that an overwhelming number of schools in our nation need facility improvements (“PK-12 Public School,” 2011).

Public education in America is available to all students; however, the equity of education facilities is in question (Uline, Wolsey, Tschannen-Moran, & Lin, 2010).   “A student may assume the faculty and staff of a poorly maintained building will accept or expect a lower standard of behavior and a lesser effort in academic achievement.” (Cash, 1993, p. 1).   These may not be the expectations; however, the perception of students becomes the reality in which they make decisions about their effort, achievement, and behavior.  The frustration caused by this perception affects both teachers and administrators.  This could directly cause educators to leave substandard schools at a higher rate and add increases in educator turnover to poor facilities.

In order to empower teachers to provide 21st century learning, the physical environments need to be seen as part of the plan to create school equality.  Some schools need to be completely rebuilt; some need thorough renovations, and others could benefit from quick, easy, and inexpensive improvements.  The Education Facilities Clearinghouse provides research based technical assistance to school administrators and school facility managers, who are interested in improving their facilities to meet the needs of their students.

Printable Version of Blog Post

References

Cash, C. (1993). Building Condition and Student Achievement and Behavior.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA.

Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (2011). The influence of school building conditions on students and teachers: A theory-based research program (1993-2011). The ACEF Journal, 1(1), 15-36.

PK-12 Public School Facility Infrastructure Fact Sheet.  21st Century School Fund (February, 2011).

Uline, C. L., Wolsey, T. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Lin, C. D. (2010). Improving the physical and social environment of school: A question of equity. Journal of school leadership, 20(5), 597-632.

Angel Ford is a research assistant with Education Facilities Clearinghouse, where she is actively involved research and content management of the EFC Website.  She is also currently pursuing her Doctorate in Education with her intended dissertation topic to be in the area of educational facilities.

21st Century School Fund, (2011). Proper planning of school facilities is critical for all school districts no matter how large or small. When school districts properly plan for their school facilities they have better schools, more public use and higher value for public spending. This evaluation guide was designed for superintendents and school boards that are called on to sign off on plans presented by facility professionals and consultants, but who generally do not have experience with educational facility planning. It can also be used by community members to advocate for high quality educational facility planning. (Posted July 16, 2014).

View Guide

Havens, K. (2010). 76 (4)

A high school is more than a building; it's a repository of memories for many community members. High schools built at the turn of the century are not only cultural and civic landmarks, they are also often architectural treasures. When these facilities become outdated, a renovation that preserves the building's aesthetics and character is usually the preferred option. Today, the post-Gothic "generation" of high schools built in the 1950s and 1960s are often in disrepair and unsuitable for the needs of 21st-century students. Unlike their predecessors, however, these schools are not architectural icons; most are worn, drab, and dated. Yet many community members still consider these buildings "their schools" and strongly oppose their demolition. This loyalty factor, combined with the higher costs of new construction, has spurred a flurry of activity in the renovation of midcentury modern high schools. Although midcentury modern high schools seem hopelessly outdated to the casual observer, they have the potential for openness and flexibility that makes them ideal candidates for renovation. This article describes the renovations of Addison Trail, Naperville Central, and Willowbrook High Schools in Illinois which involved a "reboot" of the existing architecture into alignment with current educational requirements. A primary goal was to reconfigure spaces in ways that would contribute to students' learning and the vitality of campus life.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ904665.pdf

 

21st Century School Fund (2009).

This review is designed as an updated to the 2002 review "Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?" by Mark Schneider, originally commissioned by the 21st Century School Fund's Building Educational Success Together collaborative then expanded by Dr. Schneider and published by a project funded by the United States Department of Education.

http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/Documents/ResearchImpactSchoolFacilitiesFeb2010.pdf

American Architectural Foundation (2006).

As a follow-up to the recent National Summit on School Design, the American Architectural Foundation (AAF) brought together more than 30 architects, educators, design experts, and students for a two-and-a-half-day Design for Learning Forum. This Forum sought to look at the future of school design, with a particular focus on improving the link between school design and achievement. The forum participants made 10 key findings.

American Architectural Foundation_Design For Learning Forum

(2006). Washington, DC: American Architectural Foundation.

The National Summit on School Design convened more than 200 professionals from around the country to discuss current trends related to school design. The event was an open dialogue on school design, where participants were actively engaged in discussions about school design principles for the 21st century and the challenges and tensions related to effective design. This report details eight overall recommendations made by Summit participants following discussions on a range of school design topics.

AAFNationalsummitonschooldesignreport