Building Arizona's 21st Century schools: ensuring innovative school facilities for the digital age: a report from the Arizona School Facilities Board; in response to Executive Order 2007-06

              Building Arizona’s
21st Century Schools
Ensuring Innovative School Facilities
For the Digital Age
In response to Executive Order 2007-06
Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
Arizona School Facilities Board
September 2007 Photography: © Timothy Hursley / Antoine Predock Architect PC
Ventana Vista Elementary School, Catalina Foothills Unified District
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools:
Ensuring Innovative School Facilities for the Digital Age
A Report from the Arizona School Facilities Board
in response to Executive Order 2007-06
Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
FRANK DAVIDSON, Chair
Casa Grande - School Management Representative
BROOKS KEENAN, Vice Chair
Tucson - Registered Engineer Representative
PATRICIA GOBER, Member
Tempe - Demographer Representative
GARY MARKS, Member
Prescott Valley - School Board Representative
DAVID ORTEGA, Member
Scottsdale - Registered Architect Representative
THOMAS RUSHIN, Member
Yuma - School Construction Representative
PENNY ALLEE TAYLOR, Member
Phoenix - Taxpayer Representative
VICKI SALAZAR, Non-Voting Member
Phoenix - Arizona Department of Education
JOHN ARNOLD, Executive Director
Monica Petersen, Deputy Director - Finance
Dean Gray, Deputy Director - Facilities
Carol Civiello, Researcher and Ron Passarelli, Principal Author
Published September 2007
Available on the Web at: http://www.azsfb.gov
ARIZONA SCHOOL FACILITIES BOARD
1700 West Washington Street, Suite 230
Phoenix, ARIZONA 85007
602. 542.6501
Table of Contents
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools
Preamble
DIRECTIVES to the School Facilities Board .................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................2
OVERVIEW .......................................................................................9
ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS
GOALS based on core values & a shared vision
􀂉􈤠 Integrate Technology.................................................................................................14
􀂉􈤠 Accommodate and Enrich the Teacher / Student Connection........................24
Create personalized instructional environments
Foster productive relationship-building between teachers and students
􀂉􈤠 Ensure the Safety of Students & Teachers ..............................................................30
􀂉􈤠 Address Efficiencies in Energy & Water Consumption..........................................33
IMPLICATIONS for facility size and classroom dimensions
􀂉􈤠 School Size....................................................................................................................41
􀂉􈤠 Classroom Dimensions................................................................................................46
REQUIREMENTS for design & construction funding............................................... 53
GENERAL REFERENCES & SELECTED CASE STUDIES ...................................... 64
EXHIBITS
A. Report from the May 30, 2007 Symposium
“Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools”......................................................................67
B. Governor Napolitano’s Executive Order 2005-05: Implementing Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency in New State Buildings.................................................76
C. Survey Data Related to School Size, Vail School District, June 2007........................77
D. Feedback and Comments received during the Public Review period, September
6 – 22, 2007 .........................................................................................................................88
E. Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................89
Preamble
"We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” This insight by
legendary British Prime Minister and Honorary Citizen of the United States, Winston
Churchill explains one of the underlying currents in this report. During the course of fact
gathering and research for formulating the recommendations here, the School Facilities
Board re-confirmed the fact that the environments within which our students spend their
school days do indeed affect the level of their achievement.
Since it is a matter of State interest to see Arizona students achieve and excel, then it is
a matter of State responsibility to see that the schools we build for them are places
designed to nurture their level of performance, and enrich their educational
experience. The schools Arizona will build for the 21st Century ought to be expressions
of our aspirations for our children and the future they will create.
This next generation of schools for the digital age should reflect the innovation, and
motivation for excellence that will be required of this current generation of students,
and of those that will follow, if they are to succeed in the interconnected reality of the
global economy. This report, in response to Governor Napolitano’s Executive Order
2007-06, does not presume to be an exhaustive answer to the issues raised by the
Governor, nor to be a definitive crystal ball prediction of what the rest of the 21st
century holds in store for our schools, our teachers, or our students. Rather, it is intended
to help focus public policy discussions about the design and construction of our next
generation of school facilities being equal to the nature and demands of a future
fueled by emerging technologies.
Innovation and Excellence should be the watchwords for those discussions.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 1
DIRECTIVES
In her Executive Order 2007-06, Governor Janet Napolitano directed the School
Facilities Board (SFB) to prepare a report that would recommend how the State can
build 21st century schools to best serve Arizona’s students. Governor Napolitano went on
to specify eight areas she required SFB to address. That list of eight specific directives
can best be understood if they are organized into three categories 1) Goals, 2)
Implications and 3) Requirements. The Goals are based on core values and a shared
vision from research groups, town halls, and various policy efforts. Implications focus on
the type and size of facilities necessary to address the Goals. Requirements focus on the
resources needed to fund those facilities.
GOALS
INTEGRATE technology into Arizona’s 21st century schools - “enhance ability of teachers
and students to integrate technology into teaching and learning;”
ACCOMMODATE the teacher / student connection - “create personalized instructional
environments that best match teaching programs with individual student needs and
foster productive relationship-building between teachers and students”
ENSURE school safety - “ensure the safety of all students and school personnel”
ADDRESS energy and water consumption - “maximize energy and water efficiency”
IMPLICATIONS
The executive order required recommendations regarding “school size and its impact
on learning and the impact of class size initiatives on school construction.”
REQUIREMENTS
The executive order required recommendations on “the best way to pay for new
schools the State needs.”
2 Arizona School Facilities Board
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To meet the goal of integrating existing & emerging technology into Arizona’s Schools
for the 21st Century, The School Facilities Board recommends the following:
Recommendations to the State (no significant SFB capital outlay required)
1. The State of Arizona should continue its multi-agency effort to complete a statewide
survey of broadband capacity and capability in each school district. This is the next
step necessary to ensure that all Arizona school districts have high-speed
broadband access to the Internet and sufficient broadband capacity and
capability to support a digital learning environment.
2. Once the broadband infrastructure gaps restricting Internet connectivity are
identified, an action plan should be developed, in concert with the private sector,
stating the infrastructure improvements needed, the investment levels required to
pay for them, and the time schedule within which they should be made.
Recommendations to School Districts (no significant increases to capital outlay required)
3. Each new school site and building should be equipped with Local Area Network
(LAN) capability.
4. Sufficient electrical power receptacles on one 20-amp circuit should be provided
on all walls of each classroom primarily for battery charging.
5. Classroom spaces should have infrastructure provisions for sound amplification.
6. Lighting should be controlled for different needs and with adjustable lighting levels.
7. The lighting design issues applicable to educational facilities listed in the American
National Standards Institute & Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
(ANSI/IESNA) RP-3-00 should be incorporated into the SFB guidelines for new
construction.
Recommendations requiring Legislative Authorization and /or additional funding
8. Each new school should be equipped with wireless infrastructure equal to the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 802-11N series equipment
standard, the release of which is imminent.
9. Each classroom should be constructed with hard-wire infrastructure consisting of a
minimum of six Category 6 data drops.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 3
10. Each classroom should have sufficient bandwidth connectivity to allow for
simultaneous wireless Internet connections. This is in addition to the proposed six
hard-wired data drops or the current base standard of one hard-wired network
modem with Internet access in each classroom.
11. Classrooms for kindergarten through 3rd grade should have a ratio of one personal
computing device for every three students.
12. Classrooms for grades 4 through 12 should have a ratio of one personal computing
device for every student.
13. All classrooms should have computer based presentation system capabilities, at a
minimum being a digital projector mounted on the ceiling, preferably with
directional flexibility (the ability to project in any direction with wireless connection to
the teacher’s laptop computer. The emerging technology involves wireless slates
(“Airliner TM” units) with rear projection interactive white boards (“Smart BoardTM” units).
14. Presentation (group graphic) wall-boards, in tandem with an Interactive “white
board” and a movable projection screen, should be included in all classrooms, in
order to allow the most flexible use of the space.
15. The School Facilities Board should continue to evaluate advances in classroom
technologies as they become available, for possible integration into new school
construction.
16. The State of Arizona should conduct a one-time school design competition for
prototypical designs for Arizona’s 21st Century Schools in the categories of
elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Funding to administer the competition
will be sought from private philanthropic sources.
17. The State of Arizona, in cooperation with its three universities, should develop a
demonstration and study center to serve as an incubator for innovative application
of new technologies in the classroom. In partnership with school component
vendors, the incubator would house and showcase cutting edge designs and
equipment. Each university could use the center to expose their education students
to the latest technologies and designs. Private vendors would use the incubator to
showcase their latest innovations. Districts could use the incubator to expose
teachers, students, parents and administrators to the latest educational innovations.
4 Arizona School Facilities Board
To meet the goal of accommodating & enriching the teacher / student connection
the School Facilities Board recommends the following:
Recommendations to the State (no significant capital outlay required)
1. The Office of the Governor should institute an annual awards program, administered
by the School Facilities Board, to showcase innovative designs incorporated into
Arizona school buildings that provide quality personalized learning environments.
2. Post-occupancy evaluations should be done on a pre-determined percentage of
the new school facilities constructed each year, after one full year of operation.
These post occupancy evaluations would augment the information gathered for the
School Facilities Board annual report as specified at A.R.S. §15-2002. sub-section A.
paragraph 9.
Recommendations to School Districts (no significant increases to capital outlay required)
3. The floor area of each classroom should be sufficient in order to comfortably allow
spontaneous re-configuration into group break out segments. This requires a
classroom not smaller than 900 sq. ft. (EXCEPTION: this will increase the floor area per
pupil formula allocation in K-3 classrooms necessitating additional funding).
4. New school designs should include outdoor areas usable for instructional purposes
and informal learning spaces. Each campus should have 3 sq. ft. per pupil
designated for outdoor learning spaces to ensure they are incorporated into the
design and construction of new schools.
5. In order to ensure the flexibility of the classroom, all furnishings and fixtures in it should
be designed to be eminently adaptable, durable, and easily moved.
6. The acoustical performance of the space should be designed to meet ANSI
Standards S12.60-2002.
7. Each classroom should have at least one view window to the outdoors. The daylight
from this window would augment the minimum required 50 ft. candles of lighting
required by the minimum standards.
8. The controls for artificial lighting in each classroom should be capable of providing
multiple lighting levels and isolating the areas designated as potential breakout
areas, activity zones, or flex spaces.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 5
Recommendations requiring Legislative Authorization and /or additional funding
9. The wireless infrastructure standards recommended in the technology section of this
report are critical for 21st century classrooms to be truly supportive of personalized
instruction and individual learning styles.
10. To ensure that informal learning spaces are included in the design of all Arizona’s
21st Century Schools an additional 1.5 sq. ft. per pupil should be designated for that
space allocation.
To meet the goal of ensuring the safety of students and teachers in Arizona’s Schools
for the 21st Century, the School Facilities Board recommends the following:
Recommendations to School Districts (no significant increases to capital outlay required)
1. The 911 emergency communication system from each new school should have
redundant communication connections to ensure its reliability during any
emergency situation or condition.
2. School districts should ensure that the following school safety attributes be
thoughtfully and thoroughly considered during the architectural programming
phase of each new school project:
a. Exterior Security Lighting;
b. Administrative Offices location (relative to public entrances);
c. Classroom door hardware;
d. Student interior restroom configurations;
e. Vestibule entry; and
f. Sidelights at all interior doors
Recommendations requiring Legislative Authorization and /or additional funding
3. The following four safety and security infrastructure features that are not currently
authorized for funding by the School Facilities Board statutes should to be authorized
as eligible costs with adequate funding provided.
a. Perimeter fencing;
b. Security alarms;
c. Security cameras; and
d. In-classroom telephones
6 Arizona School Facilities Board
To meet the goal of ensuring efficiencies in energy and water consumption in
Arizona’s Schools for the 21st Century, the School Facilities Board recommends the
following:
Recommendations to the State (no significant capital outlay required)
1. The State of Arizona should consider creating a performance based contracting
mechanism through which the private sector could propose to provide the
installation and operation of the mechanical systems at multiple school sites.
Recommendations to School Districts (no significant increases to capital outlay required)
2. In addition to LEED® standards, new school design and construction projects should
measure that school’s true energy efficiency by the appropriatness of the scale
(size) of its mechanical system in proportion to the size of the facility.
3. Opportunities for day lighting of interior spaces, to the maximum benefit of energy
efficiency, should be integral to the design of all new school construction.
4. Water conserving plumbing fixtures should be specified throughout all new facilities.
5. All new schools should specify and install water-less urinals.
6. Teachers at these new 21st Century Schools should be encouraged to use any of the
energy and water conservation measures incorporated into the school facility as
“hands-on” teaching opportunities.
Recommendations requiring Legislative Authorization and /or additional funding
7. All new Arizona 21st Century Schools should meet or exceed the energy measures
set out in the Governor’s Executive Order 2005-05 relating to renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
8. All new Arizona 21st Century Schools should have computerized management
controls for all energy consuming systems and mechanical systems.
9. Drought tolerant tree canopies along walkways and paths should be designed and
installed in order to provide natural shade, to help clean the air of pollution, to add
oxygen, and to help cool the microclimate around the school. Drip irrigation
systems or sub-surface irrigation should be designed and installed to minimize
evaporation losses.
10. Each new school facility project should be sufficiently funded with a specific line
item allowance to commission a qualified professional evaluation of the building
systems to ensure their maximum energy efficiency and performance levels are
attained.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 7
The School Facilities Board has identified the following implications for the size of
Arizona’s 21st Century Schools and the allocation of space within them, inherent in
the goals recommended above:
Recommendations to School Districts (no significant increases to capital outlay required)
1. Ideally there should be different sizes of schools in each district, particularly at the
secondary level, available for students and their parents from which to choose. The
final determination of the size of their new schools should be decided by the local
school district, but with an eye to the evidence found in the comparative studies
showing better student achievement and teacher attitude at smaller schools.
Methods for managing potential cost increases in constructing and operating
numerous small schools do exist and need to be studies by school district decision
makers.
2. Each new 21st century classroom should have sufficient space to accommodate
flexibility in teaching styles and learning modalities. Kindergarten through 12th grade
classrooms should each contain 900 square feet of floor area.
3. High school square foot allocation is recommended to remain at 96 sq. ft. per
student. However, the recommended increase in the size of high school classrooms
will require adjustments in the space allocation for other uses and room types.
Recommendations requiring Legislative Authorization and /or additional funding
4. Kindergarten -- 3rd grade school square foot allocation should be increased to 105.5
square feet per student. This represents a 32% increase above the current school
allocation of 80 sq. ft. per student.
8 Arizona School Facilities Board
The School Facilities Board has identified the following requirements for funding of
Arizona’s 21st Century Schools, in order to achieve the desired outcomes listed above:
Recommendations to the State (no significant capital outlay required)
1. The SFB should establish a liaison position to local governments and private
developers. The position would help each school district contact potential partners
and educate those partners to the advantages of contributing to a school project.
2. The SFB should establish model agreements that districts and local entities can
adapt for their own use.
Recommendations to School Districts (no significant increases to capital outlay required)
3. School districts should be encouraged to explore the wide range of possible
partnerships that can result in shared capital construction costs and innovative
school facilities designed to be community learning centers.
Recommendations requiring Legislative Authorization and /or additional funding
4. In lieu of General Fund appropriations, Arizona should explore long-term financing to
fund new school construction needs. Long-term debt can be issued at the state or
the local level.
5. The State should provide a 5 percent match for non-district dollars that are
contributed to a school project, over and above the funding amount derived from
SFB new construction formulae, as they may be amended.
6. The State should allow a local bonding program targeted to modernizing existing
schools.
7. The State should further explore possible dedicated revenue streams to fund or
finance school construction.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 9
OVERVIEW
Understanding Core Values and A Shared Vision
To be able to appropriately determine how best to build Arizona Schools for the 21st
Century, the SFB had to first achieve an understanding of the values and vision that will
drive the future of Arizona education.
LEAD WITH FIVE -- The Rodel Foundation
http://www.rodelfoundationaz.org/initiatives/lead_five.shtml
In 2004, the Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona published a report entitled “Lead
With Five.” It was the result of a research and policy analysis project, directed by a
steering committee of 26 business, community, and education leaders. They convened
to address the questions:
􀂉􈤠 What would it take to double the achievement of Arizona children?
􀂉􈤠 What research-based strategies would make a significant difference in improving
public education in Arizona?
Their work culminated in the following five investment strategies to improve Arizona
public education:
1. Provide full-day kindergarten for all students
2. Prepare and recognize teachers for high performance
3. Create smaller schools
4. Reduce class size
5. Provide one-on-one tutoring and other extra help for struggling students
This report has proven to be the analytical touchstone for Arizona’s efforts to provide K
through 12 education at the level necessary to make our students competitive in the
national and the global marketplace.
The 84th Arizona Town Hall, Pre-Kindergarten through 12 Education:
Choices for Arizona’s Future, June 2004.
http://www.aztownhall.org/reports/84.asp
The report of that gathering stated:
􀂉􈤠 In determining the ideal size for a school district, school or classroom, “one size does
not fit all.”
􀂉􈤠 For pre-K through 3rd grade, class size must be no greater than 15 students with
classes of 15-25 students being appropriate for classes after the 3rd grade.
􀂉􈤠 With regard to school size, students and parents should be able to choose.
10 Arizona School Facilities Board
Governor Napolitano’s POLICY INITIATIVES for Arizona’s Education System
Now in her second term, Governor Napolitano has intensified her focus on the following
policy initiatives related to public education in Arizona :
􀂉􈤠 Early Childhood Education including All-Day-Kindergarten
http://azgovernor.gov/sos/2006/010906~SOSVFDK.pdf
􀂉􈤠 Support for teachers ( http://azgovernor.gov/tqs/ )
􀂉􈤠 Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics (STEM) Education
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0702INNOVATIONSTEM.PDF
􀂉􈤠 Advancement in school design
􀂉􈤠 Incentives to accelerate innovation
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.751b186f65e10b568a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=e34e2bad2b6dd
010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=92ebc7df618a2010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
􀂉􈤠 The Governor’s P-20 Council: “From Education to Work: Is Arizona Prepared?”
http://www.governor.state.az.us/P20/
Understanding Teaching and Learning Methods
Across the nation, and indeed around the globe, educators are implementing
thoughtfully creative new ways of teaching, based on this current generation’s
immersion in digital technologies and their sense of interconnectedness with the world
through the World Wide Web. Emerging digital technologies inextricably influence any
view of the future. The reoccurring themes in discussions about the future of education
include:
􀂉􈤠 New ways kids learn
􀂉􈤠 Technology savvy “Millennials”
􀂉􈤠 Updated teaching methods
􀂉􈤠 Emerging technologies for teaching
􀂉􈤠 Project focused curricula
􀂉􈤠 Collaborative learning
Margaret Haughey, Professor in Educational Policy Studies at the University of Alberta
(http://www.ualberta.ca/) addressed the following three questions at a recent meeting
sponsored by Educause: 1.) What do we know about learning and cognition that
should be applied to the online environment?; 2.) How can existing technologies be
used in the design of effective teaching and learning experiences? ; and 3.) What are
the next challenges education will face in moving from the transfer model of learning to
the design of rich, Web-based learning environments? The following are excerpts of her
in-depth answers:
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 11
􀂉􈤠 Learning itself cannot be designed. It can only be designed for through the
(thoughtful) design of learning environments…
􀂉􈤠 Research tells us that learning occurs best in an environment that is resource rich.
􀂉􈤠 Learners must also be encouraged to go beyond the information itself.
􀂉􈤠 …if technologies were simply for providing and structuring information, they
wouldn’t be all that learner centered.
􀂉􈤠 Technologies enable us to choose authentic issues and problems.
􀂉􈤠 This is why we bother with technologies: they have the potential to expand choices
about how we teach and learn.
􀂉􈤠 Now that we know that learning is socially constructed, we can begin to see the
importance of interaction between teachers and learners and between learners
and their peers.
􀂉􈤠 Networked environments inspire community, which is the context for social learning.
See Professor Haughey’s complete presentation “Principle-Based Technology and
Learning Environment Design” at: www.educause.edu.
Understanding Alternative Visions of 21st Century Schools
Crystal ball gazing is often proven inaccurate with the passage of time. Nonetheless
there is always the brave soul who will venture a prognostication of what life will be like
several decades out. One such intrepid futurist is high school teacher Karl Fisch from
Arapahoe County, Colorado. He created a blog, called “The FischBowl” that he
explains as “A staff development blog for Arapahoe High School teachers exploring
constructivism and 21st century learning skills.” As part of that blog, he produced a
video clip entitled “2020 Vision.” This was his prediction of the world students will
experience upon their graduation in the year 2020. The following is the hyperlink to that
video clip. http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2006/11/2020-vision.html
Other prognostications about what our schools will look like by 2020 run the gambit from
“not much different from the schools of the last part of the 20th Century” to “Schools will
look more like the places where their students will be working.”
Picking up on that theme, examples abound of innovative workspaces that are not
limited to small entrepreneurial companies or creative endeavors like advertising and
graphic arts, or digital imaging studios. They include some of the largest but more
innovative corporations like Toyota, where project based group effort has made that
company very productive and profitable; or Apple Computers where innovation is their
strong suit; or Intel where pushing the limits of technology requires a collaborative drive
to build a better microprocessor. In these and other examples like them, the key
physical attributes are flexibility of the work environment to optimize productivity or to
maximize group interaction to solve a problem. A challenge for Arizona is to look at our
school facilities, particularly at the high school level, in much the same way successful
companies look at their workplaces. They are not afraid to adapt or to re-configure
12 Arizona School Facilities Board
their workspaces to keep their companies “in the game” and ahead of their
competition.
Some of the most dramatic examples of these types of spaces shaped by the
collaborative, project based, teaching method are found in classrooms purposefully
designed to emulate the work spaces high school students will be encountering when
they enter the workforce. During her presentation to the “Building 21st Century Schools”
Symposium, Dr. Susan Wolff of Oregon showcased several examples. While some were
in Community Colleges, notably the Center for Teaching and Learning at Estrella
Mountain Community College in Avondale, there were examples at the high school
level, including the East Valley Institute of Technology in Mesa. Showing slides of some
of the instructional spaces there, Dr. Wolff expressed her admiration for the fact that the
lead faculty in the various disciplines at the school were integral to the design, lay-out,
and equipping of the classrooms. Those disciplines run the gambit from culinary arts to
the fire science program.
Another example mentioned by Dr. Wolff is a learning facility in Greensboro, North
Carolina shared by the local high school and Guilford Community Technical College.
The two institutions purchased an old warehouse and have turned it into a
manufacturing prototyping center, where both high school and college level students
are introduced to the concept of testing prototypes and about system design
processes. They then learn by building a prototype as a group project. Dr. Wolff was
impressed by the fact that when the facility is not in use by the students at either
institution, the space and equipment is rented out, on an hourly basis, to local small
business owners who cannot afford the outright purchase of similar equipment. She
explained this arrangement allows for the purchase and updating of equipment with
minimal impact to a general fund budget. The facility is located in downtown
Greensboro looking like a manufacturing company, with all its high tech equipment,
but with instructional spaces, meeting rooms, and support spaces.
Facilities Programming
While the SFB’s role is limited to the construction of schools, it can only do that job well if
it understands the nature of the functions those facilities are being built to house. Any
good new facilities project begins with, as William Peña, FAIA, founder of CRSS, Inc. of
Houston called it, “… an organized method of inquiry… a five step process… to
determine the requirements of a proposed building…” and the constraints within which
it is to be constructed. This “organized method” has been known as architectural or
facilities programming. Peña went on to say that “Good buildings don’t just happen.
They are planned to look good and perform well, and come about when good
architects and good clients join in thoughtful, cooperative effort.” Peña defined
Programming as analysis and Design as synthesis.
Part of that thoughtful, analytical method of inquiry is understanding and defining the
functional activities that the proposed new facility is to house. The range of current and
emerging teaching and learning methods that Arizona’s new schools should enhance
and not hinder run the gambit from the traditional pedantic pedagogy to fresher
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 13
methods like collaborative, project based methods. During Dr. Kenneth Tanner’s
presentation to the “Building 21st Century Schools” Symposium sponsored by the School
Facilities Board and the Arizona Association of School Business Officials on May 30, 2007,
he emphasized the necessity of our next generation of school facilities to be that
flexible. The examples from his professional research at the University of Georgia on the
subject of student achievement in relationship to the physical facilities in which they are
taught and learn underpinned his conclusions. These newer techniques are similar to
the business models of new companies that look to collaborative problem solving as
their central modes of operation.
Another example shown by Dr. Wolff was the Canby High School Advanced
Technology Center in Canby, Oregon. It has a bio-agriculture space with state-of-the-art
bio-tissue culture lab equipment that was donated. An impressive freestanding
greenhouse is immediately adjacent, housing a floral design instructional space and a
biology lab.
A key component in the world the kindergarteners of 2007 will inherit, as they graduate
from high school in 2020, will be innovation. Some of the key attributes of an innovative
society are collaborative effort, a problem-solving mind-set, learning by doing, and an
entrepreneurial spirit. These attributes ought to be reflected in the schools we build.
These are not the types of attributes that can be dictated by formula. However, they
can be nurtured by the thoughtful, methodical collaboration between the school
district as client and the design team during the pre-construction phase of a project in
which they answer the following questions:
􀂉􈤠 What are the goals the client wants to achieve and why?
􀂉􈤠 What are the needs relating to budget, space, and quality?
􀂉􈤠 What are the facts about this building project?
􀂉􈤠 How does the client want to achieve the goals?
􀂉􈤠 What are the general design directions the design of the building should take and
the principle attributes it should manifest?
14 Arizona School Facilities Board
ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Integrating existing & emerging technology into Arizona’s 21st
century schools
The digital age is characterized by ever increasing rates of change in technological
applications and by the ever-widening range of available information. In a future
where technology and information are linchpins of the global economy, our students
deserve to have their educational experience match the times. While this report
cannot offer a precise prediction about the future of digital technologies in our
classrooms, it can help frame the principles that will be necessary for our next
generation of school facilities to enable -- and not hinder --the integration of digital
technologies into the learning experience those schools will house.
The results of a national poll conducted by Zogby International, titled “Education
Attitudes 2007,” were released on July 26, 2007. The results showed that of the 7,000
Americans who participated 59% agreed that “information technology is a vital tool
that can help educate our students by providing access to video and other dynamic
content” and that more should be done to incorporate technology into the learning
process. The poll also suggests that 69% of Americans believe that science and math
courses should be made mandatory for grades 7 through 12. Cisco Systems sponsored
a panel discussion at the National Press Club in conjunction with the survey’s release.
On that panel was Don Knezek, CEO of the International Society for Technology in
Education who expressed the opinion that schools need to look beyond rote practices
and look forward to innovative learning by encouraging collaborative work and
project-based work in team environments. All of the panelists agreed that educational
technology should be uniformly integrated across all school districts, and that more
funding is needed to achieve that goal. Participating in that same forum, Bill Fowler,
executive director of Cisco’s 21st Century Schools Initiative observed, “How to best
educate students so that they have the skills needed to succeed in the 21st century
workforce is a critical issue facing every nation. This survey highlights that there is a
common understanding and appreciation that technology will play a key role in
improving the way teachers teach and students learn, so that they are prepared to
take advantage of all the opportunities a global society and networked communities
provide.”
High-Speed Internet Access
One prediction that is certain is that the ability of any school to take full advantage of
the World Wide Web is totally dependent on its connection to the Internet. Without
reliable “connectivity,” a school is relegated to use computers to connect to its internal
local network only. All Arizona’s schools, particularly the next generation of new school
facilities, must have high-speed broadband access to the Internet. A critical first step in
making sure all Arizona schools are connected to the Internet is a statewide survey to
determine the availability of broadband capacity and capability for the geographic
area of each school district. The conclusion that such a survey was necessary resulted
from a joint effort involving the Department of Education, the Government Information
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 15
Technology Agency (GITA), the Department of Commerce, and the e-Learning Task
Force. The Department of Education, the Government Information Technology
Agency, the Department of Commerce, and the School Facilities Board should
cooperatively undertake a statewide survey of broadband capacity and capability in
each school district.
Earlier this year, the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC) and
the Communications Infrastructure Advisory Committee of the Governor’s Council on
Innovation & Technology sponsored the Arizona Telecom Summit – 2007. That meeting
brought together 200 government and industry leaders to explore options and reach
consensus on policies and strategies to improve statewide access to high-speed
connection to the Internet.
The primary focus of the Summit was on “the Middle Mile.” There are two primary
telecom services required to deploy broadband into a community – Last Mile and
Middle Mile. The Last Mile is the Internet connection between the Internet service
provider (I.S.P.) and businesses, homes, schools, etc. The middle mile is the high
capacity trunk lines and associated infrastructure to connect communities to the
Internet backbone points-of-presence located in major metropolitan areas such as
Phoenix and Tucson. If a common middle mile infrastructure is not available, at
reasonable rates, communities or last mile providers must construct their own middle
mile infrastructure. This may prohibit deployment of broadband service or significantly
increase the last mile costs and end users monthly rates.
The Summit recommended several policy initiatives including:
􀂉􈤠 Creation of a statewide Broadband Authority;
􀂉􈤠 Clarification of the use of state, tribal, and county owned rights-of-way for
broadband infrastructure; and
􀂉􈤠 Planning the use of those rights-of-way that will minimize associated costs.
The Broadband Authority, suggested by the Summit, could be the coordinating
mechanism for an action plan that includes overcoming broadband infrastructure gaps
restricting Internet connectivity within some school districts. It is recommended that the
Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC), and the Government
Information Technology Agency (GITA) – in consultation with the Department of
Education – prepare a coordinated action plan, cooperatively developed with the
private sector.
High-Speed Internet Access Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 The State of Arizona should continue its multi-agency effort to complete a statewide
survey of broadband capacity and capability in each school district. This is the next
step necessary to ensure that all Arizona school districts have high-speed
broadband access to the Internet and sufficient broadband capacity and
capability to support a digital learning environment.
16 Arizona School Facilities Board
􀂉􈤠 Once the broadband infrastructure gaps restricting Internet connectivity are
identified, an action plan should be developed, in concert with the private sector,
stating the infrastructure improvements needed, the investment levels required to
pay for them, and the time schedule within which they should be made.
􀂉􈤠 Each new school site and building shall be equipped with Local Area Network (LAN)
capability designed to meet or exceed the connection demands and bandwidth of
80% of the designed student cohort with wireless laptops in simultaneous use.
􀂉􈤠 Each new school shall be equipped with wireless infrastructure equal to the Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 802-11N series equipment standard,
the release of which is imminent. (This standard is capable of correcting most signal
interference problems caused by masonry and concrete structural systems.)
Applied Technologies in the Classroom
We found it helpful to categorize the possible applications of digital technology in our
schools thus:
INFORMATION
􀂉􈤠 Information and data for the teacher to use
􀂉􈤠 Research information & inspiration for the student
PRESENTATION
􀂉􈤠 Digital presentation options for the student as well as for the teacher
WORK PRODUCT & EVALUATION
􀂉􈤠 Digital mechanism for student work and for review and grading by the teacher
􀂉􈤠 Mechanism for real-time access to achievement levels to determine effectiveness of
teaching methods as well as individual student performance
TEACHER / PARENT COMMUNICATION
􀂉􈤠 Communication between teacher & parent
Because the last two of these categories are specific to instructional programs in the
schools and do not rely on the physical attributes of their school facilities, they are not
included in the following discussion that is focused on the physical attributes of
Arizona’s 21st Century Schools. However, when the full range of opportunities that
digital technology presents for our 21st century schools and the students in them is
clearly understood, it becomes clear that successful application of the technology
hinges on the commitment of the schools faculty and administrators to fully integrate I.T.
into the educational process at their school.
For purposes of this report, we have not explored the areas of digital technology
applications relating to school administration. Digital technology applications relative
to facility management are discussed in the water & energy conservation section of this
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 17
report. Communication technology applications central to school safety and security
are discussed in the school safety section of this report.
On July 5, 2006, cosponsors Discovery Education and Pearson Education published a
report entitled “America’s Digital Schools 2006.” That publication released the results of
a national survey of the top 2,500 U.S. school districts that predicted by the year 2011
more than half of all student computing devices in their schools will be mobile rather
than desktop units. It also predicted that, in the same five-year period, online learning
will grow at a compound annual rate of 26% in their schools. The school districts
participating in the survey reported rapid growth in “1:1 computing.” That phrase
means each student and each teacher has one internet-connected wireless
computing device for use both in the classroom and at home. For more information
about the study, visit www.ADS2006.org. The key findings of that study included the fact
that over 87% of schools offering 1:1 computing reported substantial academic
improvement where results were tracked. It also revealed that district superintendents
ranked low total cost of ownership as the single most important factor for implementing
1:1 computing. On the downside, the study revealed that many districts were unaware
of a looming bandwidth problem that could be caused by the growing number of
student computers and applications at each of their schools. The report also
cautioned that merely providing laptop computers, or alternative personal computing
devices, was not the answer. It said, “Professional development (of faculty and staff) is
perhaps the single largest factor in the success or failure of the digital school. … The
focus needs to shift to a rigorous process of curriculum integration, data-driven decision
making, and capacity building.” The study quoted Calvin Baker, Superintendent of the
Vail School District in Tucson, “Planning is crucial. Teachers need to be part of the
decisions and not have the solution dumped on them.” Baker began professional
development for the faculty at Vail’s Empire High School, where each student has a
laptop and access to digital textbooks, a full year before the school opened. He
employed a train-the-trainer model for the professional development program there.
A follow-up report, “America’s Digital Schools 2007,” scheduled for publication in
November 2007 will focus on the following six topics that were identified from discussions
with school districts, legislators and business partners:
􀂉􈤠 Implementation Success Factors in 1:1 Computing
􀂉􈤠 Learning Management Systems
􀂉􈤠 Online Assessment
􀂉􈤠 Student Devices
􀂉􈤠 Interactive Whiteboards
􀂉􈤠 Internet Bandwidth
For more information about the report, and the K-12 education technology survey that
will have produced it, visit www.ADS2007.org.
On this topic of technology in our schools, the “Lead With Five” report said this:
18 Arizona School Facilities Board
“ Recent research has concluded that ‘embedding’ technology in instructional
programs has a significant effect on test scores. According to some research
reviews, the effect of embedded technology rivals that of class-size reduction in
the lower elementary grades.
“ Arizona has developed a substantial technology infrastructure over the years;
most, if not all, schools are linked to the Internet and to district offices and/or a
state network. At school sites, however, investments in computer hardware and
software are too often conceived as one-time capital expenditures. In fact, most
computer related-technologies need to be maintained, fixed, upgraded and
replaced over time.
“ Cost studies of technology suggest that schools require about $250 annually per
student, …, for purchase, upgrade and maintenance of hardware and software.
… These resources will be used effectively only if teachers and administrators use
the(ir) professional development efforts …to learn how to embed technology into
the instructional and management programs of each school.”
For more information about the report, visit
http://www.rodelfoundationaz.org/initiatives/lead_five.shtml.
At the “Building 21st Century Schools” Seminar held on May 30, 2007, the focus group
devoted to the topic of Technology highlighted 1.) Technology design must be
addressed with a systems approach, and 2.) The central driver will be the digital
curriculum adopted by the faculty. Virtually all of the recommendations raised in that
focus group are included in this report. For a complete report of the Technology focus
group report from the Symposium, along with the reports of the other three focus
groups, refer to Exhibit “A” of this report.
From the perspective of the teacher, utilizing digital technology includes researching
materials and writing lesson plans for customized class texts in collaboration with faculty
colleagues for approval by the school administration. The teacher also has a broad
field of teaching tools available over the wide world web to help make the learning
experience relevant and engaging for his/her students.
From the viewpoint of the student, digital technology is the only relevant way to learn in
this day and age. Students in our classrooms today were, for all intents and purposes,
weaned on computer-based technologies. It is second nature to them. If Arizona is to
catch up to the curve, let alone get ahead of it, we must engage our students using
the digital language they grasp better than may of us who are from another
generation.
Personal computing devices also become tools for collaboration in the classroom when
project based teaching methods are employed. They give students the ability to share
data, information, and concepts with their group cohorts with very effective learning
results. Collaborative learning is one of the new teaching techniques that mirrors the
collaborative problem solving methodologies in many 21st century work environments.
Each classroom, therefore, should have sufficient bandwidth connectivity to allow for
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 19
simultaneous wireless Internet connections in order for these rooms to be truly supportive
of personalized instruction and individual learning styles. This is in addition to the base
standard of one hard-wired network modem with Internet access in each classroom.
Therefore, it is recommended that our next generation of school facilities include the
following physical attributes:
􀂉􈤠 From the perspective of the teacher, being able to use computer based group
displays for instructional purposes enhances her/his ability to effectively
communicate ideas and concepts to the entire class. Internet based research
opportunities offer the teacher the ability to bring in definitive primary source
information at the exact time a class presentation or discussion warrants it. Doing so
helps the teacher ingrain in the students the value of the World Wide Web as a
learning tool beyond the classroom as well.
􀂉􈤠 From the viewpoint of the student, computer based presentation materials are an
exciting way to learn that engage both sides of the brain. It also brings into the
learning environment the digital means and methods to which this generation of
students is accustomed. Not to do so will result in class presentations that they
would consider “lame” in their jargon. The basic touchstone for the design of these
learning environments is the student’s right to see easily, to hear clearly, and to be
comfortable.
􀂉􈤠 Interactive “white boards” are the standard today, but advances in presentation
wall boards are evolving rapidly, with multi-touch surface computing screens being
on the not too distant horizon.
Applied Technologies in the Classroom Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 Each classroom shall be constructed with hard-wire infrastructure consisting of a
minimum of six category 6 data drops. (Note: some districts, Yuma for example,
have already set that count per classroom at twelve.)
􀂉􈤠 Classrooms for kindergarten through 3rd grade should have a ratio of one laptop, or
comparable personal computing device, for every 3 students. (1:3 ratio.)
􀂉􈤠 In classrooms for Grades 4 through 12 the ratio should be 1:1.
􀂉􈤠 Sufficient electrical power receptacles on one 20-amp circuit should be provided
on all walls of each classroom primarily for battery charging.
􀂉􈤠 Classroom spaces will require computer based presentation system capabilities, at a
minimum being a projector mounted on the ceiling, preferably with directional
flexibility (the ability to project on any wall) with wireless connection to the teacher’s
laptop computer. The emerging technology involves wireless slates (“AirlinerTM”
units) with rear projection interactive white boards (“Smart BoardTM” units). The
application of these devices in the classroom holds extraordinary possibilities for
inter-active teaching and learning experiences. 21st century classrooms in Arizona
should be equipped to accommodate them.
20 Arizona School Facilities Board
􀂉􈤠 Presentation (group graphic) wallboards, in tandem with an Interactive “white
board” and a movable projection screen, should be included in all classrooms, in
order to allow the most flexible use of the space.
􀂉􈤠 Every four to five years, SFB should evaluate then current advances in available
technology for possible integration into new school construction.
􀂉􈤠 Classroom spaces should have infrastructure provisions for sound amplification.
􀂉􈤠 Lighting should be controlled for different needs with multiple switching levels. (Refer
to the Maricopa Community College Learning Space Design Guidelines 1.8.1 for
General Learning Area Illumination Levels and Controls as an example reference.)
􀂉􈤠 The lighting design issues listed in the American National Standards Institute &
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (ANSI/IESNA) Recommended
Practice RP-3-00, applicable to educational facilities, should be considered.
􀂉􈤠 The SFB should continue to evaluate advances in classroom technologies as they
become available, for possible integration into new school construction.
Inspiring Innovation & Collaboration
We have seen technological breakthroughs occur with ever increasing rapidity, over
the past three decades. We can expect that pace to continue. The innovations yet to
come can’t be predicted or mandated. They will come and our schools ought to
epitomize incubators of innovation. Our students should be inspired to think about the
future and to learn the value of their imaginations. The schools we build ought to
stimulate their imaginations and inspire them to strive for their personal best.
This report recommends that the State of Arizona play a catalytic role in stimulating
innovation and imagination on the part of the client school districts and their design
teams. It can do this by mounting a one-time architectural design competition for
prototypical designs for Arizona’s 21st Century Schools in the categories of Elementary,
Middle, and Secondary Schools. The SFB will prepare the prototypical architectural
program and space allocations, which the competing designs will have to
accommodate in each of the three school types for their respective hypothetical sites.
There would be a juried selection process administered by the School Facilities Board,
with the jury comprised of nationally recognized school design architects, school
administrators, teachers, and education policy officials. The jury selections would be
given widespread public exposure and a booklet published that could stimulate
additional ideas and innovations on the part of school boards and other decision
makers involved in the design and construction of Arizona’s 21st Century Schools.
Such a professional design competition ought to be structured as the Governor’s
Challenge to the Arizona architectural and engineering community to let their design
talents soar in designing prototypical schools that embody the innovation and
excellence that reflect the opportunities of the digital age as well as the level of high
achievement we as a State want to see from our students. The decentralized range of
ideas and concepts that such a competition could generate would set the new
standard for school design in Arizona. It has the potential to provide the stimulus for
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 21
future new school design and construction projects that embody the qualities of
innovation and excellence.
Recognizing that technologies are changing at ever-increasing rates, but wanting to
grab hold of some effective way to showcase emerging technological advances and
their benefits to the learning environments in Arizona’s 21st century schools, the SFB
recommends creation of a demonstration and study center, affiliated with the three
state universities, to serve as an Incubator for Innovation demonstrating the practical
application of new technologies in the classroom. In partnership with school
component vendors, this incubator would house and showcase cutting edge designs
and equipment. Each university could use the incubator to expose their education
students to the latest technologies and design ideas. Private sector vendors would use
the incubator to showcase their latest innovations in classroom applications. School
districts could use the center to expose teachers, students, parents, and administrators
to the latest educational innovations.
The incubator would be a facility where everything from classroom configurations to
the latest in surface computing could be tried out and demonstrated. The latest in
visual presentation hardware could be installed by the private sector to demonstrate its
benefits to our next wave of new schools and Arizona’s teachers. Similar arrangements
with building systems manufacturers could be negotiated, allowing for the
demonstration and practical testing of these new systems for the benefit of school
district personnel and teachers from across the state.
The spaces in this center could also double as professional development instructional
spaces specifically for training in the use of technology and methods for integrating
technology into the educational process at the various grade levels. In affiliation with
each of the three state universities, it could also function as a statewide resource for
video conferencing and closed circuit broadcasts of classes on the proper use of
hardware and software in the classroom. Part of the reason there hasn’t been more
acceptance of integrating technology in classrooms has been inadequate training of
school teachers and staff. With this center employing the latest broadcast capabilities
to bring state-of-the-art professional in-service training to every teacher in the State, the
effective integration of technology into the educational experience in Arizona’s schools
will be the rule rather than the exception.
The enlightened self-interests of Arizona’s IT companies would be served by stimulating
a higher level of competency in our teaching corps, and by stimulating the imagination
and engagement of our students in the use of technologies that will help them learn
and that they will need in their future workplaces. IT companies benefit directly from a
well-educated and technologically savvy workforce. It is in the State’s interest to see
to it that its students have the best educational grounding to compete in the global
economy. It is in the State’s interest to see to it that our graduating students provide the
highest quality labor pool necessary to keep our Arizona companies strong and
innovative. It is in the State’s interest to see our students, in whose talent we invest, stay
to work in Arizona.
22 Arizona School Facilities Board
Engendering Innovation and Inspired Collaboration Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 The State of Arizona should conduct a one-time design competition for prototypical
designs for Arizona’s 21st Century Schools in the categories of Elementary, Middle,
and Secondary Schools.
􀂉􈤠 The State of Arizona, in cooperation with its three Universities, should develop a
demonstration and study center to serve as an incubator for innovative application
of new technologies in the classroom. In partnership with school component
vendors, the incubator would house and showcase cutting edge designs and
equipment. Each university could use the center to expose their education students
to the latest technologies and designs. Private vendors would use the incubator to
showcase their latest innovations. Districts could use the incubator to expose
teachers, students, parents and administrators to the latest educational innovations.
References
Apple Computer, Inc. (2002). The Impact of Technology on Student Achievement: A
Summary of Research Findings on Technology’s Impact in the Classroom.
Cupertino, CA: www.apple.com/education/research.
Arlen M. Solochek, A.I.A., Editor (2006). Capital Development Projects Manual, Part
II: Learning Space Design Guidelines. Phoenix, AZ: Maricopa Community College
District, Office of Facilities Planning & Development.
Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council & Communications Infrastructure
Advisory Committee, Governor’s Council On Innovation and Technology (2007).
Arizona Telecom Summit 2007: Advanced Telecom and Broadband Deployment in
Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council.
Asmer, Peter, et. al. (2006). North Carolina School Technology Infrastructure
Guidelines. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Board of Education.
Center for Digital Government (2007). Arizona Broadband Initiative Framework:
Analysis and Report. Folsom, CA: Center for Digital Government.
Committee on Information Technology Literacy, National Research Council (1999).
Being Fluent with Information Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (2007). Arizona: A Digital Decade, A
Special State-Focused Supplement to Education Week’s Technology Counts 2007.
Bethesda, MD: Education Week Magazine, Editorial Projects in Education, Inc.,
Publisher.
Education Division Board of Directors, Software & Information Industry Association
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 23
(2007). A Vision for K-20 Education. Washington, DC:
www.siia.net/visionk20/pages/vision.html.
Great Schools by Design Initiative (2006). Schools Designed for Learning: The Denver
School of Science and Technology. Washington, DC: American Architectural
Foundation, KnowledgeWorks Foundation, & Target.
Hayes, Jeanne & Greaves, Tom (2006). America’s Digital Schools 2006: A Five-Year
Forecast, Mobilizing the Curriculum. Littleton, CO: Discovery Education and
Pearson Education.
Lemke, Cheryl & Coughlin, Ed (2006). 1 to 1 Learning: A Review and Analysis by the
Metiri Group. Cupertino, CA: Commissioned by Apple Computer, Inc.
Metiri Group (2006). Technology in Schools: What the Research Says. Culver City,
CA: Commissioned by Cisco Systems, Inc.
Nair, Parakash (2002). The Role of Wireless Computing Technology in the Design of
Schools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona (2005). Lead With Five: Five Investments to
Improve Arizona Public Education. Phoenix, AZ: Rodel Foundation of Arizona.
Thomas, Lajeane & Bitter, Gary, et. al. (1998). National Educational Technology
Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology. Eugene, OR:
International Society for Technology in Education.
Updike, Galen (2003). Arizona’s Telecommunication Organizational Structure &
Strategic Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Government Information Technology Agency.
Whitlock, Todd (2005). Utilizing 1:1 Computers to Enhance Education with an
Emphasis on Special Education. Elnora, INDIANA: North Davies Community Schools.
24 Arizona School Facilities Board
Accommodating the teacher/student connection
Over the next 20 years, Arizona faces the prospect of needing to build over 800 new
schools. The physical learning spaces we build in our next generation of schools should
enhance – not hinder -- the emerging teaching methods and learning styles of the 21st
century.
SFB agrees with the three fundamental rights for students in their learning environments
proposed by the authors of The Classroom Design Manual:
􀂉􈤠 Students should be able to see anything that is presented visually
􀂉􈤠 Students should be able to hear anything that is presented audibly, free from noise
and distortion
􀂉􈤠 Students should be comfortable in their learning environment, including air flow,
room temperature, and proper furniture.
These requirements are primary and need to be met before any other attributes should
be considered.
As part of Arizona’s shared vision for our next generation of schools, Governor
Napolitano has identified two interrelated goals:
􀂉􈤠 To create personalized instructional environments that best match teaching
programs with individual student needs; and
􀂉􈤠 To foster productive relationship-building between teachers and students.
In order to meet these goals, we must understand the emerging teaching methods and
learning styles of the 21st century.
􀂉􈤠 Teachers throughout Arizona and across the country are keeping abreast of the
digital age. Today’s teachers recognize that this generation of students seems to
have been born technologically savvy. Today’s students are connected to family
and friends by cell phones. They are connected to their world via the Internet. They
rely on the World Wide Web for their news, as their phone book, and as their
reference source. They don’t go to the library, they “log-on” wherever they might
be.
􀂉􈤠 Medical research is tracking actual physiological changes in the neurological
pathways of the brains of “Millennials” when compared to those of their parents.
Those researchers are of the opinion that this is the result of their exposure to digital
technology in their very early years.
􀂉􈤠 Teachers recognize the new possibilities of applying digital technologies to their
lesson plans. New educational software and Internet based resources are growing
exponentially. These new tools are expanding the methods available to teachers
for reaching students individually.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 25
􀂉􈤠 A growing body of evidence shows that this digital generation learns best in small
collaborative groups. This fact also bodes well for more individualized possibilities of
teacher / student interaction.
Throughout this report are references to the need to accommodate the range of
teaching methodologies and learning environments. One of the most direct
comparisons between “Traditional Learning Environments” and “New Learning
Environments” is contained in the National Educational Technology Standards for
Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology, published in 2005 by the
International Society for Technology in Education. The following table is an excerpt
from that document:
TRADITIONAL Learning Environments NEW Learning Environments
Teacher-centered instruction Student-centered learning
Single sense stimulation Multi-sensory stimulation
Single path progression Multi-path progression
Single media Multimedia
Isolated work Collaborative work
Information delivery Information exchange
Passive learning Active/exploratory/inquiry-based learning
Factual, knowledge-based Critical thinking and informed decision-making
Reactive response Proactive/planned action
Isolated, artificial context Authentic, real-world context
The Classroom
The resulting implications for the classroom in 21st century schools is that it must be
flexible in its ability to accommodate this new mix of:
􀂉􈤠 teacher instruction to the entire class;
􀂉􈤠 collaborative learning in small groups with a project focus;
􀂉􈤠 individual student laptops with wireless connections to the school network;
􀂉􈤠 interactive visual and video display panels; and
􀂉􈤠 connectivity to the World Wide Web.
The one physical factor that will best achieve “flexibility” is adequate space,
augmented by movable/adjustable furnishings and equipment.
Accommodating the Teacher/Student Connection
In the Classroom Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 The wireless infrastructure standards recommended in the technology section of this
report are critical for 21st Century classrooms to be truly supportive of personalized
instruction methods and individual learning needs.
26 Arizona School Facilities Board
􀂉􈤠 The floor area of each classroom needs to be sufficient to comfortably allow
spontaneous re-configuration into group break-out segments. This requires a
classroom not smaller than 900 sq. ft.
􀂉􈤠 In order to ensure the flexibility of the classroom, all furnishings and fixtures in it must
be eminently adaptable, durable but attractive, and easily moved.
􀂉􈤠 The acoustical performance of the space should be designed to meet ANSI
Standard S12.60-2002.
􀂉􈤠 Each classroom should have at least one view window to the outdoors. The daylight
from this window shall augment the minimum required 55 ft. candles of lighting,
required by the base standards.
􀂉􈤠 The controls for artificial lighting in each classroom shall be capable of providing
multiple lighting levels and of isolating the areas designated as potential breakout
areas, activity zones, or flex spaces.
Informal Learning Spaces
The classroom is not the only learning environment Arizona’s 21st century schools will
have to house. New exemplar schools have all allocated space for informal learning
environments. These less formal, non-traditional, spaces have proven to be well-used
resources for individual instruction and for collaborative learning at all grade levels.
Recently built, well-designed high schools provide good examples of open spaces,
adaptable for multidisciplinary instruction and learning.
Even though it is written for application in the design of college facilities, the Maricopa
Community College Learning Space Design Guidelines give a very good description of
the nature and purpose of these novel learning environments in new schools. The
following is an excerpt from those Guidelines:
“Instruction and learning no longer stops at the walls of our classrooms, it continues at
nearly all other times and locations that students or faculty may gather. In the Social Life
of Information, John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid claim: ‘As much learning happens
outside the classroom as inside.’ … Both indoor and outdoor spaces can be developed,
but must be planned. We try to provide a variety of spaces, uses, and furnishings to fit
the wide variety of social and learning styles of our students. These spaces are social,
interactive and flexible, multi-purpose, reconfigurable and open.
“Seating and informal social areas are desirable in circulation areas of learning settings
where code allows, and in other areas outside of learning areas. Seating creates an
atmosphere of unhurried scholarship, social interaction and informal teaching situations
outside the classroom. Students are able to linger in public areas, hallways before and
after classes. Have impromptu discussions, and are not shuttled in or out once classes
end. What were once just hallways become waiting and social areas before class or
meetings. Corridors and connectors become learning streets, with activities on and
between destinations, not just paths to their final location.
“The following are items and ideas that often are found with and contribute to successful
informal spaces:
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 27
􀂉􈤠 Flexibility
􀂉􈤠 A variety of seating arrangements, from picnic tables to four person round tables with
loose chairs, from upholstered chairs and couches for social settings, to tables for group
meetings and learning. Be sure to take into account seating and accessibility for
physically challenged and wheelchairs.
􀂉􈤠 Food and drink nearby
􀂉􈤠 Technology connections, hard wire but most recently, wireless
􀂉􈤠 A variety of lighting arrangements to complement the setting
􀂉􈤠 Proximity to main pedestrian paths and entities to buildings
􀂉􈤠 The ability to ‘see and be seen’ from the seating
􀂉􈤠 Typically, a ‘more active’ environment, including music, but also some quieter, retreat or
study spaces for older students used to a more placid study setting
􀂉􈤠 Seasonal shade for outdoor areas but allowing sun or filtered sun in the spring, winter and
fall.
􀂉􈤠 Association with a water feature, providing background sound and cooling effect in the
summer
􀂉􈤠 Larger, more active spaces generally located away from classroom areas to contain
noise and trash, although some limited seating, quiet study and waiting areas directly
outside classrooms is useful
􀂉􈤠 Separated areas for smokers away from buildings and other seating areas, but set up
similar to other seating.”
Properly located secure outdoor areas have proven to be very good informal learning
spaces, and even excellent alternative venues in which to hold structured classes. The
advent of student laptops has made this possibility even more appealing and effective.
The critical attributes for these outdoor areas are shade, wireless connectivity, and
reasonable security.
The old formal Library & Study Hall has long since evolved into the “Media Center.”
Now, the construct of the Media Center has been evolving of late, often a mix
between a research library with an array of computer workstations to a library with very
few books but more audio and video recordings available with work areas for students
to work on their personal laptops. The more innovative schools across the country,
albeit at the secondary and community college levels, have taken that evolution to
another level. They have transformed these Media Centers into social as well as
informal learning hubs. These “Information Commons” have taken on the attributes of
a student lounge or a coffee shop, “Info Bistro” if you will. Informal collaboration or solo
study takes place, but in a relaxed, contemporary atmosphere. The concept of
students continuing to learn over refreshments or a snack helps reinforce the lessons
being taught in the classroom at the same time reinforcing the notion that in this day
and age students can continue the learning process wherever they are and whatever
they are doing. It has the potential of nurturing their awareness that there are many
28 Arizona School Facilities Board
ways to learn a lesson. A great school facility will reinforce the realization that a
student’s personal quest for knowledge and wisdom can be, and should be life-long.
In any good management construct, post-occupancy evaluations of recently
constructed facilities are done to learn how well novel design elements are actually
performing. Those that are ought to be showcased and replicated. This report
recommends that a dedicated appropriation be enacted by the legislature to fund
post occupancy evaluations overseen by the School Facilities Board. These evaluations
shall be done on a pre-determined percentage of the new school facilities constructed
each year, after one full year of operation, and should focus on imaginative design
solutions providing personalized instructional environments. These post occupancy
evaluations would augment the information gathered for the annual report as specified
by A.R.S. §15-2002. sub-section A. paragraph 9.
The more creative informal learning spaces schools provide, the better they will be. This
is true at all grade levels. Creativity is not achieved by dictating a template. The State
should not develop a template for these innovative learning spaces. Innovation is not
something that can be mandated, but it can be nurtured and rewarded at the State
level. To that end, the School Facilities Board recommends that the Office of the
Governor institute an annual awards program, administered by the Board, to showcase
innovative designs incorporated into Arizona school buildings, whether funded by the
SFB or not, that provide quality personalized learning environments.
Key to this recognition should be evidence that these spaces have contributed to
productive relationship building between teachers and students. Another measure of
the success of these innovative learning spaces, worthy of gubernatorial recognition,
shall be evidence of improved academic achievement and increased student
engagement in their own learning process. These innovative achievements shall also
have been accomplished within a reasonable budget.
Accommodating the Teacher/Student Connection in
Informal Learning Spaces Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 To ensure that informal learning spaces are included in the design of all Arizona’s
21st Century Schools an additional 1.5 sq. ft. per pupil should be designated for that
space allocation.
􀂉􈤠 New school designs should include outdoor areas usable for instructional purposes
and informal learning spaces. Each campus should have an additional 3 sq. ft. per
pupil designated for outdoor learning spaces to ensure they are incorporated into
the design and construction of new schools.
􀂉􈤠 Post-occupancy evaluations should be done on a pre-determined percentage of
the new school facilities constructed each year, after one full year of operation, and
should focus on imaginative design solutions providing personalized instructional
environments.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 29
􀂉􈤠 The Office of the Governor should institute an annual awards program, administered
by the School Facilities Board, to showcase innovative designs incorporated into
Arizona school buildings that provide quality personalized learning environments.
References
Nair, Prakash & Fielding, Randall (2005). The Language of School Design: Design
Patterns for 21st Century Schools. Minneapolis, MN: DesignShare.com.
Allen, Robert L., Penn State University (retired); Bowen, J. Thomas, University of Georgia;
Clabaugh, Sue, University of Maryland at College park; DeWitt, Beth B., Ohio Stat
University; Frances, JoEllen, University of Illinois; Kersletter, John P., Kent State
University; Rieck, Donald A., Iowa State University (1996). Classroom Design Manual
Third Edition. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Office of Information
Technology.
Locker, Frank & Olson, Steven (2003). Flexible School Facilities. Dublin, OH & Portland,
OR: DesignShare.com.
Hill, Franklin (2006). Architecture: A Process for Educational Excellence Within Budget.
Kirkland, WA: Franklin Hill, Ph.D., & Associates.
Acoustical Society of America (2007). American National Standard Acoustical
Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools.
Washington, DC: American National Standards Institute.
Nair, Prakash (2002). But Are They Learning? Bethesda, MD: Education Week (April 3,
2002.)
Davidson, Jill (2001). Innovative School Design for Small Learning Communities.
Oakland, CA: Coalition of Essential Schools. (www.essentialschools.org)
Wolff, Susan J. (2001). Sustaining Systems of Relationships: The Essence of the Physical
Learning Environment That Supports and Enhances Collaborative, Project-Based
Learning. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Unpublished Dissertation.
Wolff, Susan J. (2002). Design Features for Project-Based Learning. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University.
Lippman, Peter C. (2004). The L-Shaped Classroom: A Patten for Promoting Learning.
New York, NY: AIA Committee on Architecture for Education in New York City.
( www.designshare.com )
30 Arizona School Facilities Board
Ensuring the safety of students and teachers
Arizona Safe Schools
Schools in Arizona should be safe and secure places in which our children and young
adults can focus on learning. Their teachers ought not be preoccupied with their own
personal safety and that of their students. There are numerous design attributes and
facility characteristics that can enhance a school’s safety and security performance.
These attributes were highlighted in a report prepared earlier this year by the School
Facilities Board entitled “Arizona Safe Schools.” The report was officially adopted and
issued by the Board on August 2, 2007.
http://www.azsfb.gov/sfb/21st%20Century%20Schools/School%20Safety%20Recommendations.pdf
That report highlighted the CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design)
program of the National Crime Prevention Institute. The four strategies that define
CPTED are:
􀂉􈤠 Natural Surveillance
􀂉􈤠 Territorial Reinforcement
􀂉􈤠 Natural Access Control
􀂉􈤠 Target Hardening
That report recommended the following ten safety features be included in all new
school facilities. They are incorporated into the recommendations of this report:
1. Exterior Security Lighting
2. Administrative Offices Location (relative to public entrances)
3. Classroom Door Hardware
4. Student Interior Restroom Configuration
5. Vestibule Entry
6. Sidelights (at all interior doors)
7. Perimeter Fencing
8. Security Alarms
9. Security Cameras
10. In-Classroom Telephones
911
One of the most critical physical attributes necessary in an emergency situation is a
reliable communication system. The “911” emergency telephone system is the
cornerstone of a school’s emergency connection to first responders. Redundancy in
that system from every school facility should be part of the design review for all new
schools.
In the event of any and all emergency incidents, a district or individual school requires
reliable communication with first responder agencies. Part of an effective school safety
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 31
strategy is to ensure that communication and information systems in Arizona’s schools
are reliable and sufficiently redundant to provide back-up to failure in the primary
system.
Other Operational Safety Considerations
Having established familiarity and cooperation with the first responder agencies in their
locales, school districts, and their individual schools, will have a leg up on efficient and
effective communication at the time of an emergency safety or security incident. SFB is
cognizant of the fact that these are operational issues and not facilities or fixed asset
issues. However, we would be remiss if this observation was not stated in the context of
our response to the Governor’s executive order.
The Arizona Department of Homeland Security instituted the AZ-211 Online Emergency
Information System in June 2005. It is available at www.az211.gov. That web site
provides a reliable statewide source for real-time updates during an emergency or
disaster situation. It also provides reliable information on available resources in times of
disaster or emergency. It is the quickest source for State and local emergency bulletins
and alerts in a crisis. School faculty and district personnel should know about that
resource and plan for its use in times of emergency, to the best advantage of the
schools, their students, and their parents.
The Preparedness Section of the Division of Emergency Management within the Arizona
Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, in collaboration with the Arizona
Department of Education, is currently conducting a survey of Arizona’s School Districts
to identify any shortcomings in Arizona’s school emergency response capabilities.
Once there is sufficient statewide data accumulated by this instrument, the two
participating agencies will make recommendations to the Governor for corrective or
supplemental actions necessary to ensure the safety of our students and teachers and
the security of our school facilities. The results of that analysis will alert the SFB of
physical security features beyond those that are recommended here for inclusion in all
new school construction projects.
The Division of Emergency Management also provides training and simulated exercises
to school district personnel to help them better prepare for emergency scenarios
requiring quick response and decisive action including the protocols for contacting the
most appropriate first responders in a variety of emergency situations. School District
personnel can avail themselves of that training support by going to the Division of
Emergency Management website at: www.dem.state.az.us and looking for the
Preparedness category link at the left hand side of the Home Page of that website,
or use this direct URL link:
http://www.dem.state.az.us/preparedness/training2004/training.htm#
School District officials should also avail themselves of technical assistance and advice
available from the Arizona Division of Emergency Management www.dem.state.az.us
Louis Trammell, Director.
32 Arizona School Facilities Board
SFB also suggests that school districts avail themselves of the technical assistance from
national organizations such as the School Safety Assessment Services available from the
National School Safety Center www.nscc1.org in Westlake Village, California or the
National Crime Prevention Council www.yar.org in Washington, DC. Also, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security,
in association with the Department of Education, offers on-line training courses in
emergency management planning and implementation specifically for schools.
The Department of Education, in January 2007, published a handbook entitled
“Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities.” It can
be found on-line at the following hyperlink:
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/emergencyplan/crisisplanning.pdf
Arizona Safe Schools Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 School districts should ensure that the following safety attributes be thoughtfully and
thoroughly considered during the architectural programming phase of each new
school project:
a. Exterior Security Lighting;
b. Administrative Offices location (relative to public entrances);
c. Classroom door hardware;
d. Student interior restroom configurations;
e. Vestibule entry;
f. Sidelights at all interior doors;
g. Perimeter fencing;
h. Security alarms;
i. Security cameras; and
j. In-classroom telephones
911 Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 This report recommends that the 911 emergency communication system from each
new school have redundant communication connections to ensure its reliability
during any emergency situation or condition.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 33
Addressing efficiencies in energy and water consumption
Energy
The average elementary school consumes power equivalent to 1,275,000 KWh per year.
The average high school consumes 2,880,000 KWh per year. These are not insignificant
numbers. With the current projection of 800 new schools Arizona will need to build
within the next twenty years, the total energy consumption levels represented by these
new schools will be on the order of 1,180,500 MWh per year. Any efficiency that can be
instituted in the energy use of these new schools, over and above the current
efficiencies required by SFB, will be significant.
Arizona Revised Statutes set out the requirement for energy conservation standards for
public buildings at ARS §34-451. That law includes school facilities. It sets the Arizona
standard consistent with the energy conservation standards of the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the International
Energy Conservation Code.
Another industry standard is LEED®. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED®) Green Building Rating System™ is the nationally accepted benchmark for the
design, construction, and operation of highly efficient buildings. LEED® provides the
quantifiable references needed to measure a buildings’ performance and efficiency.
The LEED® for Schools Rating System recognizes the unique nature of the design and
construction of K-12 schools. Based on LEED® for New Construction, issues such as
classroom acoustics, master planning, and mold prevention are addressed.
ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
U.S. Department of Energy. ENERGY STAR is a national energy performance rating
system to help citizens save money and protect the environment through the use of
energy efficient products and practices. In calendar year 2006, Americans engaged in
ENERGY STAR, saved enough energy to avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to
those from 25 million cars — all while saving $14 billion on their utility bills. Part of the
ENERGY STAR program, the Office of Building Technology, State and Community
Programs in the Department of Energy promotes a program called Energy Smart
Schools. For more information, visit: www.energysmartschools.gov.
By issuing Executive Order 2005-05, Governor Napolitano set the bar for all new state
buildings to: (1.) derive a minimum of 10% of their energy from a renewable source; (2.)
meet energy efficiency standards consistent with Arizona Revised Statutes § 34-451; and
(3.) meet at least the “Silver” LEED® standard in their design and construction. (see
Executive Order 2005-05 at Appendix “B”.) The School Facilities Board can apply these
measurements to all new schools, however to achieve them will require increased
allocations to do so. The LEED® standards consist of the following six certification
categories: 1.) Sustainable Sites; 2.) Water Efficiency; 3.) Energy & Atmosphere; 4.)
Materials & Resources; 5.) Indoor Environmental Quality; and 6.) Innovation & Design.
SFB is already ensuring that new construction projects incorporate those LEED®
34 Arizona School Facilities Board
standards that are low-cost or no-cost. These required measures can account for 16 to
18 points toward LEED® certification for a new school project.
For the complete LEED School Project Check List, go to the LEED® website: http://www.usgbc.org
In order for a new school project to attain LEED® Silver Certification it must achieve 37
points out of a possible 79 points in the listed Schools Rating System categories. An
example of a recently constructed school in Arizona that achieved LEED® Silver
Certification is Desert Edge High School, in the Agua Fria School District in Goodyear.
(There are two other school facilities in Arizona that have achieved LEED® Certification. They are Davidson
Elementary School (Tucson Unified School District) in Tucson and First Mesa Elementary School (Cedar
Unified School District) in Keams Canyon.)
The LEED® standard for mechanical system efficiency, however, is limited to the
efficiency ratings of the equipment components themselves but does not include an
analysis of the efficiency of the complete system. Therefore, the SFB recommends
including, as a measure of a school’s true energy efficiency, the size of its mechanical
system being efficiently proportional to the size of the facility (the usual industry
standard is square feet per ton of air conditioning). The baseline measure of a
building’s systemic performance should be expressed as energy consumed, in KWh per
square foot per year.
If our new schools are to be 21st century vintage, Arizona ought to move to include
computerized management controls for all energy consuming systems and mechanical
equipment. Currently, SFB funding does not cover such computer-based controls.
Additional energy consumption levels can be reduced by the careful integration of
daylight into the school. A consistent result of research shows the positive correlation of
student achievement, and teacher performance, to classrooms lit by exterior windows
with views to the outdoors. This is an equally important reason to insist that the
classrooms, and other spaces for learning, in our new schools have windows to the
outdoors.
In the near-term, the existing technology of solar panels for heating water could
account for supplemental energy savings in the operation of our new schools. With as
much consistent sun light as we have in Arizona, it is an opportunity for Arizona schools
to teach other sectors of energy users the wisdom of harnessing this renewable and
abundant Arizona resource. The current technology for this application is simple and
cost effective with a pay back period averaging about 5 years, depending on the
complexity of the system. The less complex and less expensive the system the shorter
the pay back period will be.
For more detailed data, go to: http://www.solarroofs.com/economics/index.html
There are examples of school facilities in Arizona that have incorporated solar power
systems. The leader in the application of solar power systems in new school
construction has been the Tucson Solar Schools Project, involving three school districts in
partnership with Tucson Electric Power Company. The energy savings estimates for the
individual schools that are part of this project are:
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 35
Tucson Unified District
1. Davidson Elementary School – 14,400 KWh per year;
2. Doolen Middle School – 9,600 KWh per year;
3. Project MORE – 24,000 KWh per year;
4. Hohokam Middle School – 7,200 KWh per year;
5. Tucson Unified School District Facilities Office – 3,000 KWh per year;
6. Palo Verde Magnet High School – 7,200 KWh per year.
Vail School District
7. Civano School – 4,800 KWh per year;
8. Empire High School – 12,000 KWh per year; and
Safford Unified District
9. Safford Middle School -- 9,600 KWh per year.
While these installations are modest in scale, they do represent a responsible effort to
lead the way in application of solar technology. Moreover, because of their location at
school facilities, they provide a “real world / hands-on” opportunity to see how solar
power can be harnessed today. They can stimulate students to think about the
possibilities for solar power in the future.
Current photovoltaic technology carries a higher burden of initial capital cost, per KW
produced. However, the prospects of that capital cost decreasing over the coming
years are very good. In the meantime, distributed electrical energy from renewable
sources, including solar arrays, is increasing. The Arizona Corporation Commission has
recently issued a decision that the power companies it regulates must produce 15% of
the electricity they distribute from renewable energy by the year 2025. For uses other
than to heat water, the focus of advancing energy generation from renewable sources
is best placed on the power companies rather than on individual schools.
Once photovoltaic technology breakthroughs occur making their initial capital cost
more reasonable, the possible requirement to have all new schools incorporate solar
power systems in their design and construction should be re-visited.
School Districts are encouraged to take advantage of the information and technical
assistance available through the Energy Office within the Arizona Department of
Commerce and from local utility companies. The Energy Office provides information on
energy efficiency, renewable energy usage, and policy advice. See
www.azcommerce.com/Energy/.
Energy Efficiency Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 All new Arizona 21st Century Schools should meet or exceed the energy measures
set out in the Governor’s Executive Order 2005-05 relating to renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
36 Arizona School Facilities Board
􀂉􈤠 In addition to LEED® standards, new school design and construction projects should
measure the school’s true energy efficiency by the appropriatness of the scale (size)
of its mechanical system in proportion to the size of the facility.
􀂉􈤠 All new Arizona 21st Century Schools should have computerized management
controls for all energy consuming systems and mechanical systems.
􀂉􈤠 Opportunities for day lighting of interior spaces, to the maximum benefit of energy
efficiency, should be integral to the design of all new school construction.
􀂉􈤠 Life-cycle cost analysis of all building systems should be conducted every five years
by the SFB, based on then current best available operating data compiled from
around the State, and compared against the best available national industry data.
This will give some empirical data on the most cost effective systems that can inform
the periodic updating of SFB standards for these systems in the new schools
constructed during each successive five-year period.
􀂉􈤠 Teachers at these new 21st Century Schools should be encouraged to use any of the
energy conservation measures incorporated into the school facility as “hands-on”
teaching opportunities.
Water
WATER SENSE is a voluntary partnership program offered by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Similar to the ENERGY STAR program, WATER SENSE provides
performance ratings on products that use water. The web-link is
www.epa.gov/watersense. This program provides information on water efficiency for
products and equipment that may soon be available for use in our schools. Examples
of these are:
􀂉􈤠 “high efficiency toilets” that are a grade above the “low flow toilets” currently
mandated by National and State Plumbing Codes,
􀂉􈤠 weather sensor control technologies for sporting fields irrigation.
There are many water efficient technologies available to the food service industry that
could benefit our school cafeterias. Currently the Arizona Department of Water
Resources (ADWR) is promoting a water efficient pre-rinse spray valve through a new
program called “Arizona Rinse Smart”. These new, and very efficient, valves save both
water and energy. This program is focused on replacing high water use spray valves
with low water use spray valves in commercial kitchens. The new spray valves use less
water and have higher water pressure.
Pre-rinse spray valves are used in commercial dishwashers at food service
establishments, primarily to remove food particles before plates and trays. Typically, the
food service industry is a hard sector to convince to use water efficient technologies.
Two-thirds of water used by restaurants is used for dishwashing. That same rate of water
usage undoubtedly applies to school cafeterias. These new valves are rated at 1.6
gallons per minutes at 60-psi (pounds per square inch) pressure. The newer, more
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 37
efficient spray valves use half as much water and clean more effectively than standard
valves.
Food steamers used in preparing vegetables that do not bear the ENERGY STAR or
WATER SENSE label are typically utilizing a boiler to heat the water. Boiler models
typically waste 40 gallons of water per hour by releasing water into the sewer drains.
Another opportunity for savings is through the replacement of water-cooled ice
machines with air-cooled machines. Replacement of a water-cooled machine with
an air-cooled model can save 85-95%. Another way to use less water in school
cafeterias is to make flaked ice instead of cubed ice. There are ice machines that use
no more than 20 gallons of water to make 100 pounds of ice.
Washing of outdoor surfaces (parking lots, sport courts, concrete, etc.) is best done with
water brooms. Water brooms use a combination of water pressure and air to clean
surfaces. Other water efficiency technologies are listed on the ADWR website:
www.azwater.gov.
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §45-313.01) requires every effort be made to install water
free urinals in all State buildings constructed after January 1, 2005. The SFB currently
encourages the use of water-less urinals in all new school construction projects.
Currently, requirements for the installation of water saving plumbing fixtures and fittings
in new construction projects are being enforced during project review.
Case study data from the Socorro, Texas School District shows that the annual cost
savings in water and sewer bills is at least $100 to $200 per urinal, according to Joe
Covarrubias, that school district’s Maintenance Coordinator. Their water savings at
elementary schools where water-free urinals have been installed is between 15 & 20%.
Refer to: http://waterless.com/savings.php
The water saved from one water-less urinal in a school over the course of one year can
be as high as 45,000 gallons.
An obvious area for water conservation is in the type of landscaping material palette
selected for new schools. Those materials need to be draught tolerant varieties with a
minimum of turf for ground cover.
School Districts are encouraged to take advantage of the consolidated source of
research information and analytical support available through the Arizona Water
Institute, a consortium of Arizona’s three universities, the Arizona Department of Water
Resources, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and the Arizona
Department of Commerce. See www.azwaterinstitute.org.
38 Arizona School Facilities Board
Water Efficiency Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 Water conserving plumbing fixtures should be specified throughout all new facilities.
􀂉􈤠 All new schools should specify and install water-less urinals.
􀂉􈤠 Drought tolerant tree canopies along walkways and paths should be designed and
installed to provide natural shade, to help clean the air of pollution, to add oxygen,
and to help cool the microclimate around the school. Drip irrigation systems or sub-surface
irrigation should be designed and installed to minimize evaporation losses.
Commissioning of Mechanical, Water, and Waste-water Systems
Another initiative that will result in significant life cycle cost savings for school facilities is
the implementation of a “commissioning process” to evaluate the functional
performance of the environmental systems in each of Arizona’s new schools. A
licensed professional mechanical engineer who has achieved certification by the
Building Commissioning Certification Board, and whose credentials as a Certified
Commissioning Professional have been accepted by the SFB, can serve as a
“commissioning agent” for a new school construction project. {Visit the Building
Commissioning Association at: www.bcxa.org for more information.} In that capacity, the
commissioning agent is directly contracted by the district to conduct this analytical
exercise on behalf of the district, and to report directly to the district as owner of the
facility. The qualified commissioning agent is not responsible for design concept, design
criteria, compliance with codes, design or general construction scheduling, cost
estimating, or construction management. The commissioning agent may assist with
problem-solving or resolving nonconformance or deficiencies, but responsibility resides
with the general contractor and design professionals. { Excerpted from the First Public Review
Draft: ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.) Standard
189, Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. }
Such commissioned evaluations of these building systems will help ensure that the sizes
and types of system components are the best matched for the facility and when
installed will provide the most energy efficient and cost effective systems for this
particular new school application. That qualified agent can also evaluate the actual
in-place performance levels achieved by the systems, and can make
recommendations for adjustments to the system that will maximize its efficiency of
operation.
Performance Contracts for Mechanical & Utility Systems
There is reason to believe those multi-school operations, possibly in more than one
school district, can be competently run with significant capital and operating cost
savings to the participating school districts. Those cost savings could then be diverted
into an equipment replacement fund. Economies of scale could be maximized if
multiple school districts participated.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 39
Similar performance based contracts for waste water treatment could also be
entertained, if the geographic clustering of new schools in a given area, at the time of
construction, warranted such an alternative to stand-alone systems for each of those
new schools.
An example of such a contractual public/private sector partnership was recently
announced by the San José (California) Unified School District. The district hailed it as
an innovative partnership that is the largest solar power and energy efficiency program
in K–12 education in the United States. The contractual partnership involves the school
district, Chevron Energy Solutions, and Bank of America. It provides for the installation
of five megawatts of solar power at the district’s schools. The projected energy cost
savings over the life of the solar power system is more than $25,000,000. The project is
being constructed without any district capital investment required. The partners
announced that the new system will effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
37,500 tons, which they equate to planting 400 acres of trees.
At the July 25, 2007 announcement, Jorge González, president of the district board of
education said: “This program is the result of years of research and commitment on the
part of San José Unified’s Board and is living proof that schools can improve their
facilities and help the environment without tapping their capital budgets. It’s also an
educational opportunity – it can help teach our school communities about energy
efficiency and renewable power.”
Chevron will design, build, operate, and maintain the photovoltaic arrays on the school
sites. They will also measure, verify, and guarantee the solar energy system’s
performance. Bank of America will own the equipment and, through its Energy Services
Financing Solutions team, will sell power to the district under a service contract at rates
significantly below market utility rates. The first phase of the project is expected to be
completed by early 2008. The School District’s web-link is: www.sjusd.org.
Commissioning and Performance Contracts Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 Each new school facility should commission a qualified professional evaluation of its
environmental building systems to ensure their maximum energy efficiency and
performance levels are attained as installed.
􀂉􈤠 The State of Arizona should create a performance based contracting mechanism
through which the private sector would propose to install and operate the
mechanical systems at, or provide utility service to, multiple school sites under a
request for proposal basis.
40 Arizona School Facilities Board
References
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (2007). What Are Green Schools?
Phoenix, AZ: State of Arizona. http://www.azdeq.gov/function/about/green1.html
Arizona Revised Statutes (2005). §45-313.01. Water free urinals; state buildings.
Phoenix, AZ: State of Arizona.
Diebolt, Asa & Den Herder-Thomas, Timothy (2007). Creating a Campus Sustainability
Revolving Loan Fund. Lexington, KY: Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (2006). Lighting for Educational
Facilities. ANSI/ISEA Recommended Practice RP-3-00. Washington, DC: American
National Standards Institute.
Kammen, Daniel M. and Nemet, Gregory F. (2005). “Reversing the incredible shrinking
energy R & D budget.” Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2005. pp. 84 - 88.
Kats, Gregory (2006). Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits.
Washington, DC: A Capital E Report.
Kats, Greg, & Perlman, Jeff (2005). National Review of Green Schools: Costs, Benefits,
and Implications for Massachusetts. A Report for the Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative. Washington, DC: A Capital E Report.
Lancaster, Brad and Marshall, Joe (2007). Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands, Volume 1:
Guiding Principles to Welcome Rain into Your Life and Landscape. Tucson, AZ:
Rainsource Press.
Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design (2007). LEED® for Schools Registered
Project Checklist. Washington, DC: US Green Building Council.
Matthiessen, Lisa Fay & Morris, Peter (2004). Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost
Database and Budgeting Methodology. Santa Monica, CA: Davis Langdon & Seah
International.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, et al. (2002). Energy Design Guidelines for High
Performance Schools in Hot and Dry Climates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Energy.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 41
Implications for facility size and classroom dimensions
Lead With Five, the Rodel Foundation report, and others like it across the country,
concluded that smaller class size, particularly in the lower grades, is crucial for
achievement throughout a student’s academic career. That Rodel report also
reviewed national research that confirms the benefits of small schools. See the table
below for its recommendations concerning school and class size.
Rodel Recommendations
SCHOOL TYPE GRADES SCHOOL SIZE
(# of Students)
CLASS SIZE
Elementary 500
K -- 3 15
4 – 5 25 (average)
Middle 500
6 -- 8 25 (average)
Secondary 500 – 1,000
9 -- 12 25 (average)
There is consensus that the class size recommendations by the Rodel Foundation are
consistent with the other class reduction initiatives across the nation. This conclusion is
based upon interest group discussions, teacher interviews, discussions with educators
and administrators, and focus group discussions at The 21st Century Schools Symposium
co-sponsored by the Arizona School Facilities Board and the Arizona Association of
School Business Officials on May 30, 2007, in Casa Grande, Arizona.
School Size
On the point of optimal school size, “Lead With Five” said:
“Creating smaller schools might seem like an expensive proposition. But if the
idea is implemented correctly, it can be just as cost-effective as large-school
alternatives. …it is possible to create smaller school units without building smaller
school buildings.”
It went on to describe the concept of creating groups of smaller school units on the
same campus with shared support facilities, athletic programs, and administrative
structure. It elaborated on its recommendation to create smaller schools this way:
“The recommendation is not that all schools in Arizona be converted to smaller
schools. Rather, consistent with the ‘choice’ philosophy that operates in Arizona,
the suggestion is that parents and their children be given a wide range of schools
so they may attend large comprehensive high schools, or ‘schools within schools,’
or some small schools built with state funds, or charter schools.”
42 Arizona School Facilities Board
Comparison of School Size Recommendations & Requirements
School
Type
Rodel Recommended School Size
(in # of students)
Florida (recent Statutory limits for new
schools)
Florida Existing SMART Schools
(averages)
No. Carolina Dept. of Edu.
Lawrence, et al. 2002*
Stevenson, Kenneth R.: Edu Trends
Shaping School(s) **
# of SFB Currently Approved School Projects
SFB Currently Approved Schools
(average size)
Elementary 500 500 820 300 -400 500 200 35 937
Middle 500 700 1,139 300 - 600 750 400 - 500 9 908
Secondary 500 -- 1,000 900 2,180 400 - 800 1,000 500 - 750 16 1,413
* Lawrence, Barbara Kent, et alia. “Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools.” 2002.
Knowledge Works Foundation. See also Howley, Craig B. and Howley, Aimee. “School Size and the
Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Student Achievement: Confronting the Threat of Size Bias in National
Data Sets.” 2004. Educational Policy Analysis Archives.
** Stevenson, Kenneth R. “Educational Trends Shaping School Planning & Design: 2007.” National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2006.
In June of 2004, the topic of the 84th Arizona Town Hall was Pre-Kindergarten through 12
Education: Choices for Arizona’s Future. The report of that gathering stated:
“In determining the ideal size for a school district, school, or classroom, ‘one size
does not fit all.’ Size is most important at the school and classroom level and
should be determined at the local level….
“The ideal size for a classroom will depend upon the age and needs of the
students and the subject matter being taught. All agreed that small class sizes
are better because they contribute to greater student-teacher interaction and
create an effective learning environment. For pre-k through third grade, class size
must be no greater than 15 students with classes of 15-25 students being
appropriate for classes after the third grade.
“With regard to school size, students and parents should be able to choose
whether a small school with a more individualized environment or a larger school
with a greater variety of programs and diversity within the district is appropriate
for the individual student. With regard to class and school size, the basic needs of
the students should be kept in mind.”
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 43
That conclusion was reinforced by the discourse among the 199 individuals attending
the Building 21st Century Schools Symposium sponsored by the School Facilities Board
and the Arizona Association of School Business Officials on May 30, 2007, at Casa
Grande Union High School. The purpose of that Symposium was specifically to solicit
ideas and discuss concepts addressing the eight specific topic areas directed by
Executive Order 2007-06 relating to the attributes needed in our next generation of new
schools.
In the national arena, the SFB found research and other reports that corroborated that
recommendation. The Knowledge Works Foundation, with the support of Concordia,
LLC and The Rural School and Community Trust, published two reports, the first entitled
“Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools” © 2002, and the second
entitled “Dollars & Sense II: Lessons Learned from Good, Cost-Effective Small Schools” ©
2005. The first of these professed:
“Conventional wisdom contends that small schools are substantially more
expensive to build than large schools, but the evidence … challenges that belief.
…Analysis of this database (from 145 ‘reasonably sized schools’) shows that the
smaller of the reasonably sized schools are less expensive to build than the larger
schools, whether we look at cost per square foot or cost per student. … creating
facilities for small schools can be done cost effectively …”
That report also pointed out:
“Adding up the costs and weighing them against the benefits shows that small
schools not only are better places in which to educate children, but that large
schools themselves actually create significant diseconomies. … Students drop out
of large schools at significantly greater rates than do out of small schools. The
costs to society for students who drop out of high school before graduating are
enormous…. It takes more paid professionals per student to deal with the
negative effects of alienation in a large school than in a small one, where people
know each other better.”
In its publication Guidelines on Facilities Planning, the North Carolina Department of
Education states:
“American school leadership continues to build large public schools in pursuit of
cost effectiveness and curriculum diversity, but may be sacrificing positive school
culture and meaningful education reform in the process (Conway, 1994). …
Researchers on school size indicate ideal school sizes for improved safety and
violence reduction to be: Elementary: 300-400; Middle: 300-600; High: 400-800.”
(North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2000, p. 4, 40)
In his paper entitled; “Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design: 2007”,
Kenneth R. Stevenson, of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policies,
College of Education, University of South Carolina, wrote:
44 Arizona School Facilities Board
“In the next 25 years it may not be unusual to see elementary schools housing an
average of 200 students, middle schools with no more than 400 to 500 students,
and high schools with 500 to 750 students….
“Supporters of the trend argue that small schools are particularly good at
improving the academic achievement for students who have not done well in
traditional settings, and that small schools have higher graduation rates, promote
greater student involvement in co-curricular activities, and experience improved
student behavior (Wasley, 2002; et. Al.) Supporters also believe that since
children are better known to teachers and administrators in small schools, they
are safer and receive more individualized instruction…. If small schools
demonstrably produce higher graduation rates, in the long run they cost
communities less than do large schools.”
Calvin Baker, Superintendent of Vail School District 20 in Pima County, has conducted a
recent survey that sheds some light on the comparative perceptions of students from
high schools in three size categories. (See Exhibit “C”) Although the study focused
primarily on attitudinal and comportment observations, the results are telling. The
students at the largest school felt much less positive about their school than students at
the smaller schools. The following problem areas were perceived to be appreciably
worse in the large school by students enrolled there, than they were by the students in
the two smaller schools: Bullying, Fighting, Drugs, Harassment, Disruptive Students,
Verbal or Physical Abuse, Truancy, Vandalism, and Theft.
In reflecting on the results of the survey, Mr. Baker observed:
“…it is difficult to explain why students at the large school perceive the school so
much worse than students at the smaller schools…. It is difficult to look at the data
without concluding that school size must be at least partially responsible for the
difference in how students perceive their school’s environment.”
Sizes of Current SFB Approved School Projects
A review of the current list of new construction projects approved by the School
Facilities Board reveals that in the elementary school and middle school categories,
where the Rodel Report recommended new schools be limited in size to a student
enrollment of 500, SFB has approved a total of 44 projects with an average designed
enrollment of 931.1 This represents an average school size that is 86.2% in excess of the
Rodel recommendation.
The same data for secondary schools where the Rodel report recommends new schools
sized for student enrollments between 500 and 1,000 shows 16 SFB approved projects
whose average designed capacity to be 1,413 students. This represents an average
school size that is between 41.3% (as compared to the 1,000 student size
recommendation) and 82.6% (as compared to the 500 student size recommendation)
in excess of the Rodel recommendations for secondary schools.
1 SFB approved (as of February, 2007) new construction projects scheduled for completion between 2008 and 2010.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 45
School Type Grade Level
Rodel
Recommended
School Size
Current SFB Approved School Projects
# of
Projects
Average School Size
(Designed Capacity in
number of students)
Average floor
area
Average Unit
Allocation per
student
Elementary 500 35 937 (average) 75,176 s.f. 80.23 sf
K -- 5 7 860
K -- 6 5 765
K -- 8 23 999
Middle 500 9 908 (average) 73,125 s.f. 80.53 sf
6 -- 8 7 824
7 -- 8 2 1,204
Secondary 500 -- 1,000 16 1,413 (average) 144,076 s.f. 101.96 sf
7 -- 12 1 661
9 -- 12 14 1,552
10 -- 12 1 223
Analyzing the current list of SFB approved new school projects that are not yet
completed, we find the following per student space allocations:
35 Elementary Schools whose average size is 75,176 sq. ft. with an average designed
capacity of 937 students = 80.23 sq. ft. / student.
9 Middle Schools whose average size is 73,125 sq. ft. with an average designed
capacity of 908 students = 80.53 sq. ft. / student.
16 High Schools whose average size is 144,076 sq. ft. with an average designed
capacity of 1,413 students = 101.96 sq. ft. / student.
There does appear to be consensus within the Arizona educational community that the
State should not mandate the size of schools at the various grade levels. The prevailing
sentiment is for the question of the appropriate sizes of schools a district builds to be left
to the local school boards. The previous table, on page 43, illustrates that the sizes of
new elementary, middle, and high schools recommended by the Rodel study are
comparable to those sizes recommended in other states across the country.
After careful consideration of these comparative studies, review of these reports, and
opinions expressed in the various discussions with groups of educators, school
administrators, interest groups, and focus groups, the State of Arizona should support
the finding of the Rodel Foundation that ideally there should be different sizes of schools
in each district available for students and their parents to choose from. Moreover, the
final determination of the size of their new schools should be decided by the local
46 Arizona School Facilities Board
school district, but with an eye to the evidence showing student behavior, teacher
attitude, and improved student achievement.
While the ideal would be for each school district to have a range of school sizes
available from which students and parents could choose which is best for them, not all
Arizona school districts have the numbers of students or resources sufficient to make
that ideal real. Therefore, this report suggests that when adjoining districts find it difficult
to provide such school size choices individually, they consider working collaboratively to
decide how together they might be in a position to create different school size choices.
School Size Recommendations
􀂉􈤠 Ideally there should be different sizes of schools in each district, particularly at the
secondary level, available for students and their parents from which to choose.
Moreover, the final determination of the size of their new schools should be decided
by the local school district, but with an eye to the evidence found in the
comparative studies showing better student and teacher attitude and perception,
as well as proven achievement, from those at smaller schools.
Class Size
On the issue of optimal class sizes, there has been a virtually unanimous conclusion that
children who are taught in smaller classes in the early grades perform better than those
who are in classes with 20 or more pupils. The longer-term achievement levels of those
students who had the benefit of smaller classes during Kindergarten through third grade
are also higher. Numerous studies that have proven this fact were cited in the Rodel
Foundation report, Lead With Five.
Florida was so convinced of the benefits of smaller class size, in November 2002 it voted
to limit classes for:
􀂉􈤠 pre-kindergarten through the 3rd grade to a maximum of 18 students;
􀂉􈤠 grades 4 through 8 to a maximum of 22 students; and
􀂉􈤠 grades 9 through 12 to a maximum of 25 students.
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 47
Comparison of Class Size Initiatives
number of students in each class
Grade Levels
Rodel Recomm-ended
Class Sizes
84th AZ Town Hall
California Initiative to
Reduce Class Size
Florida State Law
Georgia State Board
Rule
Indiana Prime Time
Tennessee Project STAR
Tennessee Education
Improvement Act
Federal Dept. of
Education
K 18
K -- 3 15 15 <20 18 18 13 - 17 20 - 25 18 or <
1 -- 3 21 13 - 17
4 -- 5 25
15 -
25 22 28 15 - 20
4 -- 6 25 - 30 15 - 20
6 -- 8 25 25 22 28 15 - 20
.7 -- 12 30 - 35
9 -- 12 25 25 25 24 - 35
Resulting Classroom Floor Area
One might initially assume that the initiatives to reduce class sizes would result in smaller
classrooms. There is a logic to that, but at the same time, educators are pushing for
more “kinetic teaching and dynamic learning” environments. This requires more space
per student in the classroom, not less. The current SFB unit allocation for new schools is
80 sq. ft. per student. The classroom allocation is figured at 45% of that 80 sq. ft. This
results in a classroom allocation of 36 sq. ft. per student.
48 Arizona School Facilities Board
Comparative Analysis of Class Sizes & Classroom Floor Area
Classroom by
Grade Levels
Kinder
garten 1 -- 3 4 -- 6 7 -- 8 9 -- 12
SFB sq. ft. Allocations
per student
18 36 36 36 33
Rodel Recommended Class
size ( # of students)
15 15 25 25 25
Resulting Classroom Space
Allocation (in sq. ft.) 270 540 900 900 825
Median Classroom Sizes in SFB Approved & Funded Schools * (in sq. ft.)
applying Rodel Class Size (# of students) Recommendations
Classroom Size by
Grade Levels
Kinder
garten 1 -- 3 4 -- 6 7 -- 8 9 -- 12
Elementary School
Classroom Sizes
707 921 919
space per student in sq. ft. 47.13 61.40 36.76 based on Rodel Class Size
Recommendations
Middle School
Classroom Sizes
902
space per student in sq. ft. 36.08 based on Rodel Class Size
Recommendations
Secondary School
Classroom Sizes 898
space per student in sq. ft. 35.92 based on Rodel Class Size
Recommendations
* SFB Approved New School Construction Projects as of February 2007 with scheduled completion dates from 2008 to 2010.
Community College "Learning Studio" Sizes
Estrella Mountain
Community College
750 sf
renovated
classrooms
955 sf 1,000 -
1,200 sf
recommended
Designed Student Occupancy 24 32 32
Unit Allocation in Sq. Ft. per
student
31.25 29.84 31.25 to 37.5
Building Arizona’s 21st Century Schools 49
Kindergarten – 3rd Grade Classrooms
Each kindergarten classroom does not result in sufficient space to accommodate such
flexibility. For the recommended K – 3rd grade class size of 15 students, using the current
36 sq. ft. per student, a classroom is limited to 540 sq. ft. Additionally, Arizona’s current
practice of only recognizing ½ of each kindergarten student, for facility purposes,
dictates a kindergarten classroom of 270 sq. ft. for a class of 15 students. These room
sizes will not permit the alternative layouts demonstrated to be so beneficial to early
childhood educational experience. A 900 sq. ft. classroom would require SFB’s unit
allocation per student to be increased to 60 sq. ft. To quote the late Walt Disney:
“Crowded classrooms and half-day sessions are a tragic waste of our greatest national
resources – the minds of our children.” In light of Arizona’s commitment to all day
kindergarten, and the evidence of the lifetime benefits of effective early childhood
education, the SFB allocation for K-3 classroom space should be increased to 60 sq. ft.
per student.
4th – 6th and 7th & 8th Grade Classrooms
The Rodel Foundation study recommended that class sizes at grades 4 through 8 be
limited to 25 students. SFB’s current allocation for 4th – 6th grade classrooms is 36 sq. ft. /
student. This would result in a 900 sq. ft. classroom. That floor area is sufficient to allow
for multiple small group project-focused teaching modes.
SFB’s current allocation for 7th & 8th grade classrooms is 36 sq. ft. per student. That
results in a 900 sq. ft. classroom, which is sufficient to allow for multiple small group
project-focused teaching modes.
9th – 12th Classrooms
The Rodel Foundation study recommended that Arizona adopt a class size in secondary
school classrooms of 25 students. SFB’s current unit allocation per student at these
grade levels is 33 sq. ft. This would result in classrooms in our high schools being limited
to 825 sq. ft, which is minimally sufficient to allow for multiple small group project
focused teaching modes. Assuming a set classroom size of 900 sq. ft. would require
SFB’s unit allocation per student to be increased to 36 sq. ft.
Although an increase in the space allocation for secondary school classrooms is
recommended, the total net size of new high schools should be held to the current per
student allocation of 96 square feet per student. This will mean the reduction or
elimination of some space in other use categories in the architectural programs for new
high schools. Other options may be discovered with creative design solutions.
50 Arizona School Facilities