Unfortunately, in designing new schools or renovating older ones to reflect new theories in education, the users are rarely consulted in a meaningful way. Teachers, parents, and students are seldom engaged in a manner that lets them discuss how instructional spaces will be used.

For a good school building that meets the needs of a community, the educational programming should precede the architectural programming. It is even better when both are developed in tandem. Then an equilibrium can be reached among (1) the program factors that determine the functional area requirements, (2) the quantity and quality of space required, (3) why are we doing this, and (4) the economics of the project.

Educational programming, which should be developed and written by educators, defines the functional spaces for teaching; architectural programming, prepared by architects, defines the direction for the architectural design. Architectural programming is the initial phase of the architectural process and also the link between the educational programming and the architectural design. The architectural program is form-giving and physical in nature, while the educational programming provides a functional/operational outline.

At least, that's the way it should be. It appears to those of us who reviewed entries for this year's Learning By Design, however, that many school districts are shortcutting the process and not really taking the time to think through what the school of the future should be. Nevertheless, certain themes or trends emerge from this year's projects.

Prototypical school buildings

The first theme that caught our attention was the number of buildings that were designed as prototypes for school districts. This is a growing trend: To ease the challenge of funding K-12 school construction, many state legislatures are establishing a central clearinghouse of prototypical designs for school facilities that may be accessed by local school boards. This system is expected to result in cost and time savings in school design, provide broader access to architects who specialize in school design, and increase awareness of current trends in school design.

Prototypical school design creates a unique opportunity to provide better facilities at reduced costs in both rural and urban areas. Architects can help a district save time and money by using either prototype plans or a kit of parts. The two strategies are similar:

1. Prototype plans are construction documents an architectural firm has created with site adaptability in mind. Often one or more schools based on the prototype design have already been built, and clients can tour those schools. The architect keeps the plans on file as one option for future clients.

2. A kit of parts involves plans for a set of modules (such as auditorium, cafeteria, classrooms, storage areas, and labs) that can be fit together as needed to create a fairly standardized, yet site-specific design.

Any prototype plan or kit of parts must be modified to adapt to local terrain, soil conditions, north-south orientation, traffic flow, and availability of water, sewer, and utilities. Both are created to be highly flexible for site adaptation.

If school officials find a design they like, they can contact the architect of record, who retains the copyright to the design as well as the professional liability associated with using the documents. This system realizes some savings in time and money through economies of scale. And the architect is still involved, providing the services you need.

Experience has shown, however, that prototype designs often do not offer the economy of scale for renovations or additions that they do for new construction. In large urban areas, on the other hand, with their higher concentration and relatively consistent building materials and methods, prototypes have proved to be an efficient way to renovate building systems such as roofs and windows, where the need for renovation is often the greatest.

We believe the use of prototypical schools will help reduce both short-term and long-term construction costs. This means school districts can serve more children with modern facilities, which will improve the educational environment for kids. Every facility-related dollar saved is a dollar earned for teachers and teaching tools. School spaces designed to maximize efficiency in circulation, access, and multiple use allow more time and energy for learning activities. Classrooms designed for a particular school district's technology plan will allow precisely the wiring, lighting, and configuration of spaces that will work right the first day the school opens and throughout the facility's life cycle as technology and needs change.

	The facade of the media center at Saxe Middle School in New Canaan, Conn., shows the trend toward multistory schools.

The second theme that caught our eye was the large number of multistory elementary schools. The reason most often cited was that available land dictated the need for a smaller building footprint. Replacement of older buildings in urban areas required multiple stories because additional land was not available. Several projects noted that it was more economical to build up, rather than out.

Two-story elementary schools have many advantages:

In addition, some planners say you can create feelings of both separateness and togetherness better with a two-story structure.

Two-story elementary schools also have disadvantages, however. For one thing, some argue that safety is a bigger issue when elementary children are housed on a second floor. Others say that it takes longer for smaller kids to traverse stairs in getting from one place to another. And code-related restrictions to housing young children above the first floor can place limits on program locations within the building.

The third theme we observed centered on the learning environment. In a sense, a school building is an important tool for learning, and like any tool, it can enhance the process or hinder it. School facilities should be designed to facilitate what we know today about providing the best possible education for all students.

Most of the facilities housing the more than 86,000 existing public schools in America were designed to sustain a model of education characterized by large-group, teacher-centered instruction in isolated classrooms. But current knowledge and research about learning calls for new models of education that are characterized by more active student involvement. Students are doing rather than just receiving, creating rather than recreating; they are thinking, working and solving problems. They are supported by strategies such as cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary learning, all of which require students to move about, work in various sized groups and be active. Today's educational facilities are being designed to support these and other examples of current best practices and ongoing research in the learning sciences.

Extended learning areas

Teachers will tell you they need more space for traditional lectures, small-group activities, larger panel discussions, independent research, and technology-supported instruction. They need storage space for various project materials, as well as plenty of wall space, windows, marker and tack boards, and, of course, networked computers with access to the Internet and other information systems. Classrooms need to be bigger to accommodate these needs, but that can be difficult because of state square-footage standards and the need to keep costs down.

One way to provide teachers with additional space is through the use of extended learning areas. In this design approach, four to six classrooms are clustered around common student and staff work spaces. These "extended learning" or "project activity" areas are used as an extension of the classroom, allowing teachers to combine students into various size groups for appropriate activities. Often, these commons areas provide ingress and egress to the classrooms, and many of them also contain space for science, art, computers, and kitchen facilities.

Another theme we observed is the integration of vocational and academic programs, supported by an integrated facility design. One way the reviewers observed this integration was placing the vocational space within the academic area. Although teachers play a significant role in meshing academic and vocational education, they can't make significant change in the teaching and learning process without administrative, institutional, community, and state support. Traditionally, the academic curriculum and the vocational curriculum have been completely separate. To merge the two requires restructuring, wherein the administrator becomes more of a facilitator than a director, providing teachers with opportunities that will empower them in their efforts.

Integration among academic disciplines should be a hallmark of the curriculum. It can take a variety of shapes -- for instance, between math and science; history and English; or history, math, and the arts; and between academic and vocational disciplines, such as agriculture and science or math and business. Curriculum integration is a dynamic process, beginning with simple changes in individual courses and progressing to more extensive reforms involving multiple courses and departments.

Why should schools make this change? The answer has to do with a common vision for and solid commitment to clear educational goals -- something that is missing in many school districts. Most teenagers today attend high schools that show little connection to what is happening in the workplace, families, and communities. Moreover, in today's information-centered world, too many students are still presorted and channeled into academic and nonacademic tracks, which fosters inequity and consigns many to diets of scholastic junk food. The effort to integrate academic and vocational education may be the best stimulus to reconstruct the American high school.

In the next several decades, schools will be called on to provide flexible classroom space to foster participatory learning. Students will become active participants in the learning process and will be required to apply the concepts they have learned in hands-on, real-life situations. To facilitate this, the learning environment must lend itself to multiple learning styles, the incorporation of technology, and flexible arrangements that will support project work and both large- and small-group instruction.

There may also be increased demand for spaces that serve different functions and incorporate multiple work centers. Classrooms will need to provide an atmosphere that permits cooperative learning, individualized instruction, and authentic assessment, while at the same time providing space for teachers to work with various sized groups of students. To accommodate these teaching methods and learning styles, the classrooms of the future may need to be larger and come in varied configurations, reflecting the varied teaching and learning styles that will be supported in tomorrow's schools.