The Language of School Design

8/2/2019 The Language of School Design

1/33

Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools

D e s i g n S h a r e


2/33

Endorsed by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities

and KnowledgeWorks Foundation

Design Patterns for21st Century Schools

Prakash Nair & Randall Fielding

D e s i g n S h a r e


3/33

DESIGNSHARE.COM

THE LANGUAGE OF SCHOOL DESIGN: Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools

$35/Architecture/Education/School ReformCopyright 2005DesignShare.com, Prakash Nair and Randall FieldingISBN 0-9762670-0-4

Endorsed by:National Clearinghouse for Educational FacilitiesThe KnowledgeWorks Foundation

This publication has been developed with generous support from the following sponsor:

"Construction SpecialtiesCreating Products That Make Buildings Better"www.c-sgroup.com

All proceeds from the sale of this book will be used to support research and publication projects by

DesignShare.com, the world's premier, and completely free, resource for innovative school planningand design.

DesignShare.com and the authors hereby grant the holder of this book, limited permission tophotocopy selections from this copyrighted publication for nonprofit and educational use subjectto the following conditions: 1. Photocopies must include a statement that the material is copiedfrom The Language of School Design: Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools 2005 DesignShare.com, Prakash Nair and Randall Fielding and, 2. Photocopies must include any other credit and/or copyright notice applicable to the material copied. Reproduction or storage in any form ofelectronic retrieval system for any commercial purpose is prohibited without the express, writtenpermission of the copyright holders. All rights reserved.

Cover Photos: Canning Vale Community College, Perth, Western Australia by Keith Lightbody

Cover and Book Layout Design: Union Design & Photo, www.uniondesignphoto.com.

viii

Language of School Design


4/33

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviiIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Enriching the Four Realms of Human Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

The 25 Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

The Pattern Language Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Classrooms, Learning Studios, Advisories and Small Learning Communities . . . . . .17

Welcoming Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Student Display Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Home Base and Individual Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Science Labs, Arts Labs and Life Skills Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Art, Music and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Physical Fitness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Casual Eating Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Interior and Exterior Vistas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Dispersed Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Indoor-Outdoor Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Furniture: Soft Seating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Flexible Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Campfire Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Watering Hole Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Cave Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Designing for Multiple Intelligences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Daylight and Solar Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Natural Ventilation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Full Spectrum Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Sustainable Elements and Building as 3-D Textbook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Local Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Connected to the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Bringing It All Together. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

The Great Learning Street Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

The Future: Should We Stop Building Schools? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Developing Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114

Pattern Submission Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

Endorsements & Sponsors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

ix


5/33

Introduction

1

Inspired by AlexanderWhen Christopher Alexander wrote APattern Language more than 25 years

ago, he approached architecturefrom a unique perspective. He lookedat the real world of people plus thebuildings and spaces they inhabitedin order to understand the connec-tions between the built environmentand the human psyche. Focusing onarchitectural and landscape attributesthat worked, on places that felt pleas-ant or were spiritually uplifting and towhich people were attracted rather

than turned off, Alexander was ableto identify many spatial "patterns" thatnourish the human communities theysupport.

Interestingly, the larger body ofarchitectural work, in the periodimmediately following the publicationof Alexander's ground-breaking book,does not appear to have affectedthe way we build our homes, ourtowns and cities. However, over time,Alexander's work has gained credibilityas the ideas he presented havebegun to enter the scientific realm ofcomplexity theory, fractals and neuralnetworksdisciplines on the cuttingedge of science. The "connections"between the built environment and

healthy communities that Alexanderwas pointing out are now morereadily apparent. Today, we know

that human brains are actually hard-wired to understand and respond topatterns in all spheres of our life and,particularly, to those that exist withinour built environments.

Our book, The Language of SchoolDesign, does not claim to bescientifically based. The book drawsupon our own experience as schoolplanners and the best practice of

school design from over 20 countries,represented by hundreds of innovativeschool designs that we have publishedat DesignShare.com.

Why a Pattern Language for Schools?We felt the need to develop a patternlanguage for schools for the simplereason that while Alexander's bookis now beginning to influence theplanning and design of healthycommunities, transformation ispainstakingly slow in the world ofschool design. Despite the fact thatthe educational establishment itself hasembraced a number of innovativeapproaches over the years, architectsoften hear educators speak with avocabulary reminiscent of their own



6/33

childhood experiences in schoolbuildings designed for a different time.

Why do schools look the way theydo? Why is there a chasm betweenwidely acknowledged best practiceprinciples and the actual design ofa majority of school facilities? Why

has the connection between learningresearch and educational structuresbeen so difficult to repair? These are thequestions that we have been grapplingwith over the past decade as schoolplanners.

A Common Design VocabularyFrom our own experience and fromthe research, we have begun to

understand that one of the biggestroadblocks to innovation is the lack ofa common design vocabulary that allschool stakeholders can share. In otherwords, there is no quick and elegantfashion in which design ideas can bedeveloped and tested in a way thattruly involves all stakeholders.

Most of the larger school systems (andmany of the smaller ones as well) rely

on their own internal "quality control"methods to develop schools. But theinadvertent result of all this qualitycontrol is a lot of sameness and littleinnovation.

The climate in which schools aredeveloped today, with heavy relianceon educational specifications, designguidelines, exemplars and prototypes,leaves little room for real creativity andinnovation. Educational specificationscreate a school before it is createddesign guidelines are too prescriptive(so that architects are often relegatedto the role of assembling pieces insteadof doing real design). Exemplars lookgood on paper or may have workedin certain specific circumstances,

2

but have little to do with the needsof particular communities; and mostprototypes are about cookie-cutterschools that don't even pretend to becommunity specific. We firmly believethat schools need to grow from ashared vision. But we know that muchcan be lost in the translation of a

written vision into built form. And so,we need a graphic pattern languageto supplement the written wordsapattern language that is so simple thatevery participant in the planning processcan not only understand it, but actuallycreate their own patterns or easilyamend ones developed by their designprofessionals. In this sense, our patternlanguage differs from Alexander's in

that we wanted to create an actual,usable design vocabulary for schoolsas a living, changing thingsimilarto the spoken and written languagethat changes as cultures grow andchangebut one that everybody canuse.

25 Patterns Are Only A BeginningWe want to emphasize that we are notpresenting these design patterns as a

comprehensive vocabulary for schooldesign. The 25 patterns containedhere only begin to define the graphiclanguage for the design of healthy andfunctional learning environments. Tothe extent possible, we have selectedpatterns that represent certain universalprinciples, though they are not to beused as a template or prototype ofhow any given element in a particularschool should be designed.

School designers should look atthese patterns as a starting pointfor developing their own patterns ormodifying the ones provided here. Ofcourse, in certain circumstances, someof these patterns will be usable withoutmodification.

The Language of School Design


7/33

Some Pattern Ideas That Need to BeFurther DevelopedThe professionals who reviewed thisbook submitted many useful suggestionsthat have already been incorporatedinto this first edition. Some of these ideasneed to be explored further, and to dothis we are recruiting the book's future

"authors"the readersto create newpatterns that best represent these ideas.Here is a small sampling of the areas thatwill be developed in the next edition ofThe Language of School Design:

To what extent do state standardsand required curriculums dictatethe manner in which schoolbuildings are planned and

designed?

Do the facilities created as a result ofsuch external educational forceshelp or hurt learning goals?

How does the physical design of aschool affect the social dynamicsof the school community?

The last issue has been partially

addressed via the various patterns in thisbook that encourage social learning.Some of the areas need to be lookedat further, such as the way in whichtoilets can be designed and locatedto mitigate the problem of bullying.Other issues deal with the conditionsthat seem to attract particular groupsof students to "territorialize" parts of theschool campus and how these areasmove back and forth between variousage groups as they progress throughschool.

Diagrammatic and Illustrative PatternsEach of the 25 patterns (and theirsub-patterns) in this book can be cat-egorized as either diagrammatic orillustrative.

Diagrammatic Patterns: A diagram-matic pattern is a rough sketch of a"big idea." In this sense, a diagram-matic pattern is somewhat generic anduniversal in scope. That doesn't meana diagrammatic pattern will representa spatial relationship that works in allcases, but it is intended to represent aparticular philosophy of planning anddesign, more than the actual design of

a particular school. See Figure I-1.

Diagrammatic patterns are useful earlyin the planning process as a graphicsounding board to gauge a client'sgeneral educational philosophy anddesign preferences. A diagrammaticpattern can also be created very quicklyand "on-the-fly" to capture specificideas during planning and communitymeetings. These kinds of early sketches

often influence the final design.

Illustrative Patterns: Illustrative patternsare different from diagrammaticpatterns in one important respectthey are more detailed. It is not unusualfor an illustrative pattern to also besomewhat universal in scope. In general,the more detailed the illustration is, the


Figure I-1. Diagrammatic pattern for cafsat Goa International School, India. Planner:Fielding Nair International (FNI); Architect: FNIwith Dennis Coelho and Suhasini Ayer.


8/33

less universal its scope. If this is so, whybother with an illustrative pattern andcan it even qualify as a pattern? Theanswer is yes. We believe that anyillustration can be a "pattern" as longas it documents spatial relationships ina way that communicates the big idea.That is why diagrammatic patterns

intended to first introduce a big ideaoften turn into illustrative patterns toflesh out that big idea. In Figure I-2 the illustrative pattern shows howthe design pattern fits into the overalldesign process.

How to Use the Pattern LanguageMethodLet us take a moment to introduce

how exactly our Pattern Language

Method can help in the design processby looking at a specific example of itsuse. Figure I-2 shows the stages in thedevelopment of a cafeteria design fora school that was aided by the useof design patterns. This client originallystarted with the idea of building atypical large school "cafeteria." During

the course of the discussion utilizing thePattern Language Method, we wereable to understand how the cafeteriashould not only reinforce the school'sdesire to create "community," butalso give a special identity to each ofits Small Learning Communities. Weunderstood that this could not be donewithout somehow breaking down thescale of the large cafeteria into smaller

cafs. However, because of financial


Figure I-2. Illustrative pattern for Goa International School shows how the Design Pattern fits into theoverall design process.


9/33

constraints, we needed to service allthe cafs utilizing one central kitchen.

These discussions led to a very roughpenciled pattern showing how threeseparate cafs might be developedthat could be serviced by one centralkitchen (Figure I-1). Once the team

agreed with this direction, a moreillustrative pattern was developedby the planning team that allowedthe architects to produce a scaledschematic design drawing (Figure I-2). Utilizing this system, we can breakdown the communication barriers togood design that often beset schoolarchitecture.

In Pattern #25: Bringing It All Together(Figures 25-1, 25-2, and 25-3), we lookat another examplethis time for awhole school. This is to demonstratehow the Pattern Language Methodwe are proposing is not only about theelements that make up a school, butalso about effectively setting up thedesign for a whole campus.

Knowing its value as an important aid

in the school planner's toolbox, we areinterested in continuously expandingour graphic "vocabulary" and sharingthe information with all those involvedin the creation of schools and schoolfacilities. We have created a specialonline interface at our website(http://designshare.com/patterns) tocollect more graphic patterns fromthe school planning community basedon their own experiences. Periodically,we will review and edit the patternssubmitted and reissue this book inelectronic and print form.

The Numbering System for DesignPatterns

Our Language of School Design startswith a look at 25 distinct "patterns," each

5

representing a distinct area of schoolplanning and design. The patterns arenumbered from 1 to 25. Within eachidentified area, there are potentiallymany different patterns or sub-patterns.These become associated with theoriginal pattern. For example, we havemany patterns under the primary learning

area umbrella, the classroom in its manyiterations, which is Pattern #1.

As we move forward and new patternsare added, we will determine first if thepattern belongs in one of the original25 "categories" already established. If itdoes, we will add it to that category andgive it its appropriate number from 1 to25 plus an alphabetical suffix a,b, c, etc.

On the other hand, if the pattern bringsa new idea to the table, it will get its ownnumber such as 26, 27 and so on.

The advantage to this system is thatPattern #1 will always be the placeto go to for information about theprimary learning area: classrooms,studios, Advisories and the like. Similarly,entrance features will always be partof Pattern #2, so people can quickly

refer to Pattern #2 for information aboutentrances, or for example, to Pattern#23 for sustainable design, no matterwhich edition of the book they have.

With far less investment of money andeffort than the traditional system, wheredesigners and school stakeholders donot share a common language of schooldesign, the Pattern Language Methodcan help build consensus quickly, andcreate superior designs.



10/33

Introduction

Enriching the Four Realms of Human Experience

It is clear that most school architecturetends to look at spaces in a linearwaythat means we first decide what

a space would be used for and then wedesign the space for that activity. Thiskind of thinking ignores the complexityand research about the human brainand human experience, resulting inthe design of static spaces that inhibitlearning.

The reality is that the design of learningenvironments is a complex assignment.While the solutions may be simple or

elegant, they can almost never be"simplistic." We need to understand thecomplexity of the human experienceas noted above in order to understandwhat "learning" is about. We alsoneed to recognize that it is almostimpossible to solve a design problemunidimensionally. Everything we doas designers impacts the users of thespace at many different levels.What exactly in the whole range ofhuman experiences does The PatternLanguage Method encompass? Inresponse, we can say that it dealswith four major and simultaneousrealms of human experiencespatial,psychological, physiological andbehavioral. Each of these realms is

characterized by multiple "attributes."See Table I-1.

What is fascinating about this list isthe obvious interconnectedness of theattributes across the four realms and thefact that the interconnectedness is non-linear. That means it is nearly impossibleto identify simple cause-and-effectrelationships between specific attributesthat would hold true always. Theserelationships are always contextual, butthey are far from being outside ourability to control. For example, research

tells us that as humans our sense ofsight (physiological realm) is a majoremotional (psychological realm) trigger.We also know that our emotions canelicit a physical response (behavioralrealm) such as laughter when we arehappy, facilitated to a lesser or greaterdegree by the environment (spatialrealm).Let us look, for example, at "Light onTwo Sides" in the original A PatternLanguage by Christopher Alexander,which advocates having daylightpenetrate a room from more than onedirection. The purpose is to reducestark contrasts that characterize roomswith only one window. Of course, if theproblem were simply one of lighting a



11/33

given space, it could be accomplishedwith one window or even with adequateartificial light but that would missAlexander's point, which goes to theheart of how we as humans experienceour environment.

Going beyond individual patterns andfocusing on how they work together,Alexander likes to refer to a building'sfunctional complexity using such wordsas "dense" and "profound." He comparesa well-designed building to poetry asopposed to prose, because the formercan be understood at many differentlevels that go beyond the meaning of

the individual words. In the same way, agood building can either "string togetherpatterns" without any real coherenceor assemble them to create poetry indesign form.

This is the fundamental thesis behind thePattern Language Method advocatedby Alexander and by us in this book;

that there are certain recognizable"patterns" that define healthy spatialrelationships both at a micro andmacro level. Unlike Alexander'sambitious work which encompasseshuman environments at every scale,we have limited our focus to the designof learning environments. However,we acknowledge that the learningenvironment is actually nothing morethan one piece of a larger patternand that good planning requires thateach piece be respectful of the overallpatterns for communities and townsthat the original A Pattern Languageidentifies. In this sense at least, it is

really impossible to ignore the largercontext in which a learning communityis situated. We have addressed this in alimited way in Pattern #22, Connectedto the Community, but we strongly urgeour readers to read Alexander'sA PatternLanguage for a treatise on the largerspatial patterns in our communities,towns and cities.


Table I-1. The four realms of human experience and their corresponding attributes.

Realms of HumanExperience Withinthe Purview of SchoolPlanning and Design

Spatial

Psychological

Physiological

Behavioral

Attributes

Intimate, Open, Bright, Closed, Active, Quiet, Connected to

Nature, Monumental, Technological

Soothing, Safe, Awe-Inspiring, Joyful, Playful, Stimulating,Creative, Encouraging Reflection, Spiritually Uplifting,Creating a Sense of Community

Warm, Cool, Cozy, Breezy, Healthy, Aromatic, Textured,Visually Pleasing

Independent Study, Collaborative Work, Team Work, PhysicalFitness Activity, Research, Writing, Reading, Computer Work,

Singing, Dancing, Performing, Presenting, Large Group Work,Communing With Nature, Designing, Building, Teaching,Relaxing, Reflecting, Playing


12/33

To pass the test and qualify as a "pattern,"there has to be a certain universality to itsapplication. A good example is Pattern#12, Local Signature, which cites threeextremely diverse examples from Perth,Western Australia, from Goa, India andfrom Bridgehampton New York. Eventhough the examples themselves would

seem to have nothing in common, thecommon human experience they seekto evoke ties them together within one"pattern."The Pattern Language Method is asensible way to provide room for thesevarious facets of our essential natures tobe stimulated, while at the same timeallowing for the wide range of human

interests and behavioral tendencies toco-exist peacefully. An example of howthe four realms can be made to work inpractice is the placement of an art roomwith natural lighting and a landscapeview (physiological and spatial realms)intended to evoke a desired creativeresponse (behavioral realm) by ensuringa suitable peaceful and reflective frameof mind (psychological realm). The abilityto rearrange the room so that different

persons can organize themselves atdifferent times of the day for differentartistic activities makes the design morerobust. Our desire for flexibility mustnot supercede our primary intent, whichis to positively manage the complexrelationship within the four realms in orderto create an environment conducive toartistic endeavors.

It is also clear from the above discussionthat there is a certain synergy within thepatterns themselvesa point we touchedupon earlier. The above example for thedesign of an art room borrows ideas fromvarious patterns in the book entitled:Daylighting, IndoorOutdoor Connection,Student Display Space, IndoorOutdoorVistas andArt, Music and Performance.

A school, or any learning environmentfor that matter, in its totality, represents avery complex organization, but one thatcan usually also be represented in theform of a "pattern." An example of this isthe "Bringing It All Together", Pattern #25.The larger pattern will only make sense,however, when its sub-groupings are

also recognized as complete "systems,"themselves deserving to be representedas patterns.

While we are only listing the positiveattributes of the four major realms ofhuman experience, many attributeshave a paired negative attribute aswell, that we as school designers don'twant to trigger via the design we

create. Examples of negative attributeswould be claustrophobic, stale, gloomy,drafty, dysfunctional, depressing, scary,inflexible, uncomfortable, banal, andso on.

Obviously, the permutations andcombinations by which the variouspositive attributes can come togetherare almost infinite and that is why healthy"patterns" are important to identify. The

patterns included in this book havebeen developed over time and arebased upon our experience with spatialrelationships that are functional at avery fundamental human level. Thesepatterns respect the great complexityof human needs that vary not only withtime and the context in which peopleoperate, but also from person to person.

Beyond the curriculums and tests thatdefine so much of what school is allabout, it is ultimately our ability to enrichthe four realms of human experiencenoted above that will determine howwell we have done our work as schoolplanners, designers and as members ofa learning community.



13/33

Introduction

The 25 Patterns

11

We have selected the following 25school design patterns because theyrepresent a fairly complete range of the

various design principles that define bestpractice. It is important to stress thatdozens of variations of each diagram wehave provided are possible. The numberof diagrams that can be done is onlylimited by the school planning team'simagination. And yet, each diagramincluded in this book embodies certainuniversal principlesand the principlesthemselves are less likely to change fromsite to site.

1. Classrooms, Learning Studios,

Advisories and Small Learning

Communities

2. Welcoming Entry3. Student Display Space

4. Home Base and Individual

Storage

5. Science Labs, Arts Labs and Life

Skills Areas

6. Art, Music and Performance

7. Physical Fitness

8. Casual Eating Areas

9. Transparency

10. Interior and Exterior Vistas

11. Dispersed Technology

12. IndoorOutdoor Connection

13. Soft Seating

14. Flexible Spaces

15. Campfire Space

16. Watering Hole Space

17. Cave Space

18. Design for Multiple Intelligences

19. Daylighting20. Natural Ventilation

21. Full Spectrum Lighting

22. Sustainable Elements and School

as 3D Textbook

23. Local Signature

24. Connected to the Community

25. Bringing It All Together



14/33

Introduction

The Pattern Language Method

1

The 25 "starter" patterns in this bookhave been ordered into six categoriesas follows:

1. Parts of the Whole2. Spatial Quality3. Brain-Based4. High Performance5. Community Connected6. Higher Order

We talked earlier about interconnect-edness of the four realms of humanexperience that healthy patterns try to

balance. A great deal of interconnect-edness of patterns also occurs acrossthe six areas listed above as shown inTable I-2.Individual patterns may themselveshave qualities that qualify them forconsideration under more than onecategory; however, we have tried toidentify each pattern under the onecategory that describes its purposemost clearly. In only two cases havewe placed a pattern under more thanone category; and in these cases, wehave identified the primary categoryunder which each one belongs. (Pattern#1, dealing with classrooms and SmallLearning Communities, is primarilyclassified as category one, Parts of the

Whole, but also fits the description ofcategory six, Higher Order. Pattern #2,Welcoming Entry, is primarily classified

as category one, Parts of the Whole, butalso fits the description of category # 5,Community Connected.)

We expect that all future patterns willfall into one of the above six categoriesthough we are open to considering theinclusion of additional categories shouldwe discover a school design patternthat does not fit the description of theabove categories as follows:

Parts of the Whole: These are patternsthat describe specific functional areasof a school. The first 8 patterns presentedin this book starting with classrooms andLearning Studios and ending with CasualEating Areas look individually at severalkey parts of the whole schoolthus theterm "parts of the whole." However, notevery school will contain all the parts wehave discussed under Pattern Numbers1 through 8. By the same token, it ispossible that we have not listed everyfunctional area that a school mightcontain. Many specialty academiescontain highly customized spacesdesigned to meet particular functionalneeds. For example, the Center forAdvanced Research and Technology



15/33

(CART) in Clovis, California contains aForensics Lab whose requirements mayonly be partially captured by the patternsin this book.

Spatial Quality: These are patterns thatdescribe the quality of a given space orspaces and cut across functional areas.

Transparency and flexibility, for example,are spatial qualities that apply to severalof the other patterns.

Brain-Based: The primary facet of abrain-based pattern is that it responds tosome particular aspect of brain-basedresearch. Patterns in this categorydeal with the design of spaces thatstimulate the brain in ways that are

beneficial to learning and overall humandevelopment. The four patterns listedunder this category are important toconsider in the design of any and allparts of the school and relate again tothe concept of interconnectedness.

High Performance: High Performanceis a term that applies to the efficientoperation of the building, as well as theway in which it is designed to get the

best "performance" from its occupantsby providing a healthy, safe and cheerfulenvironment. These are patterns thathighlight a building's connection withnature, its sustainable qualities, andthe opportunities that are available totranslate the way it is put together intoself-evident learning toolsthus theterm, "3D textbook."

Community Connected: There is ampleevidence that schools that are integralparts of their communities work better.Not only are students of communityschools more likely to get a bettereducation, but community schools alsoserve to strengthen social ties and buildeconomic value for the neighborhood asa whole. But Community Connections as

1

a pattern goes beyond making schoolsinto community icons; it involves locatingthe school in a place that allows thestudents to get at least a part of theireducation by participating in activitieswithin the community and outside theschool building. A school can thusbe "connected" to the community by

having students take part in communityservice assignments, by working at localbusinesses, corporations and institutions,and by utilizing the resources of existingcommunity facilities such as the localYMCA or library.

Higher Order: We define a Higher Orderpattern as one which encompassesother patterns within it. The most obvious

example is Pattern #25Bringing It AllTogether. This is a pattern that shows howan entire school might be arranged and,therefore, includes various componentsthat can themselves be represented aspatterns. At a smaller scale, Pattern #1also qualifies as a Higher Order Patternbecause its sub-patterns are actuallycombinations of simpler concepts thatare put together using stand-aloneelements like the Learning Studio and

the Advisory.



16/33

15Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools

Table I-2. Classification of patterns.

Pattern#

Description Pattern Type

Parts of theWhole

SpatialQuality

Brain-Based

HighPerformance

CommunityConnected

HigherOrder

1

Classrooms, LearningStudios, Advisoriesand Small Learning

Communities

X X

2 Welcoming Entry X X

3Student Display Space

X

4Home Base andIndividual Storage

X

5Science Labs, ArtsLabs and Life SkillsAreas

X

6Art, Music andPerformance X

7 Physical Fitness X8 Casual Eating Areas X

9 Transparency X

10 Interior and ExteriorVistas X

11 Dispersed Technology X

12Indoor/OutdoorConnection X

13 Soft Seating X

14 Flexible Spaces X

15 Campfire Space X

16 Watering Hole Space X

17 Cave Space X

18 Design for MultipleIntelligences X

19 Daylighting X

20 Natural Ventilation X

21 Full Spectrum Lighting X

22Sustainable Elementsand School as 3DTextbook

X

23 Local Signature X

24Connected to theCommunity X

25 Bringing It All Together X

* Where a Pattern is listed under more than one category, then the bold-faced "X" indicates thatpattern's primary classification.


17/33

indeed, what learning is all about. Andhow are those four computers sitting inthe back of the room being used? Theybecome additional learning resources,like textbooks, but do not change theessential model of the teacher firmlyin command of the students under her"supervision" and active tutelage.

Under the original classroom-basedmodel of a school, it made sense toregiment several classrooms next to

each other and place them on longcorridors that could be easily supervised.This was efficient from the standpoint ofspace and provided the adults with themost "control," since students leavingclassrooms had nowhere to go butinto the easily-supervised corridors fromwhere they could move to the "other"learning spaces like science labs and art

Figure 1-1. Design Patterns #1 and #1a :Traditional Plan and Ford Model Evolution.

1

No book about school design would be

complete without a discussion of the"classroom" and what this space mightlook like in tomorrow's school. In fact, it islegitimate to ask if the classroom shouldcontinue to reign as the primary buildingblock of a school as it undoubtedly doestoday.

Before we can talk about design, itis valuable to take another look atwhat the classroom represents. Theclassroom is the most visible symbol of aneducational philosophy. It is a philosophythat starts with the assumption that apre-determined number of students willall learn the same thing at the sametime from the same person in the sameway in the same place for several hourseach day.

Cells-and-Bells (Ford) Model

A classroom's simplistic design alsoassumes that the significant partof a student's learning occurs in thetransmission of knowledge from theteacher to the student in a somewhatlinear fashion. A 750 square-foot spacewith 25 student armchair-tablet desksand a teacher's desk at the front ofthe room makes eminent sense if this is,


Design Pattern #1

Classrooms, Learning Studios,

Advisories and Small Learning

Communities


18/33

Great Learning Street Debate at theend of this book.Another simple fix to the cells-and-bellsmodel is the installation of operablewalls between two classrooms on eitherside of the corridor. This allows greaterflexibility in the way the overall space is

utilized and also permits two teachers tocollaborate and "team-teach."

Taking this one step further, some part ofthe corridor walls along the classroomscould be glazed to allow in naturaldaylight and also create "Transparency"which is another important designprinciple in new paradigm schools (seeDesign Pattern #9).

Taking the development of the double-loaded model even farther, sometimesreferred to as the "finger plan," the patternin Figure 1-2 shows smaller groupings ofclassrooms, six to eight at the most,pulled away from the main corridor. Inthis arrangement, the classroom clusterbecomes a destination and not part ofthe larger thoroughfare. The finger planhas an added benefit in that it opens

up the opportunity to make the maincirculation spine into a Learning Street.

Figure 1-2. Design Pattern #1b : Finger Plan.

roomsalso preferably set up along adouble-loaded corridor.

The classroom model worked bestfrom a control standpoint if the dayitself could be broken down into neatlittle segments (45 minutes being thepreferred period after which one

activity would shut down and anotherwould begin) and if the segmentationcould be announced by bells that, overtime, literally programmed the studentsto switch gears on command. Thus theterm "cells and bells" was born. The vastmajority of school buildings are in factcells-and-bells models. For illustrativepurposes only (in other words, we arenot suggesting that this is a workable

model for 21st century schools), we start,therefore, with Pattern #1the early20th century cells-and-bells patternin which several regularly shapedclassrooms are aligned along a double-loaded corridor.

Ford Model EvolutionAnother way of looking at the traditionalclassroom model is to equate it to afactory or production model in which

the philosophy of the assembly linewith its inherent efficiencies dictatesthe look and feel of the school. But bytinkering with this model, we can amendit somewhat to create an expandedcorridor. See Figure 1-1.

An expanded main central corridor canalso satisfy the need for social learning,by slightly changing the dynamic of thecontrol model and making the schooldesign more "progressive." Done well,an expanded corridor could functionas a "Learning Street" though we havenot seen any Ford Model Evolutionplans done well enough to qualify asLearning Streets. For a more completediscussion of Learning Streets, pleasesee the discussion in the essay, The

1 The Language of School Design


19/33

While it is a simple departure fromthe traditional corridor model, thefinger plan model can have significantpsychological benefits for students whoare now better able to define their"Home Base" and thus take ownershipfor it. In order for these benefits tobe fully realized, each cluster of

rooms should be differentiated fromthe remaining clusters so that it hasits own unique identity. This can beaccomplished by giving each winga different architectural character,changing color schemes, providingdifferent options for display of studentwork and so on. In the end, however,classroom clusters within a simple fingerplan may not qualify as a Small Learning

Community because it lacks variouscommon elements beyond classroomsthat make each finger self-contained.We will look later at concepts that takethe finger plan to the next level in orderto create Small Learning Communitiesor SLCs.

First, however, let us look at the reasonsfor departing from the traditional modelof school and toward a new 21st century

model.

We now have abundant evidence fromthe frontiers of brain-based researchthat learning is not linear, but holistic,and that it is not uni-dimensional butmulti-faceted. As we move into the postknowledge economy, we should belooking beyond the "knowledge worker"who is now a global commodity. Ourmost valuable export as a country willbe creativity and innovation and theseskills are not developed in the cells-and-bells model of school.

Under the new learning paradigm, weare looking at a model where differentstudents (of varying ages) learn differentthings from different people in different

1

places in different ways and at differenttimes.

Clearly, it is hard to reconcile the oldand new models of school. The spacesset up for the old paradigm would beextremely difficult to tailor so that theyfunction well for the new model.

To what extent such change may ormay not be possible will vary fromschool building to school building andwill depend upon how many of thefollowing modalities of learning can besupported by the physical spaces. Bylooking at existing or proposed schooldesigns with this list in mind, it will beeasier to gauge their suitability to serve

21st

century learning needs.

1 Learning Modalities

The 18 Learning Modalities (this may notbe a complete list) that the physicalschool must support are1:

1. Independent study2. Peer tutoring3. Team collaborative work in

small and mid-size groups (26

students)4. One-on-one learning with the

teacher5. Lecture format with the teacher

or outside expert at center stage6. Project-based learning7. Technology-based learning with

mobile computers8. Distance learning9. Research via the Internet with

wireless networking10. Student presentations11. Performance and music-based

learning


1- It is important to remember that these learn-ing modalities do not all need to be supportedunder one roof since some schools may haveauxiliary or community facilities that are broughtinto play to augment school facilities.


20/33

foreseeable future, let us look at designpatterns where the cells-and-bells modelis amended so that the classroom goesfrom a rectangular box to a more flexible"Learning Studio." The term LearningStudio is sometimes used to refer to anL-shaped classroom which is, actually,not a new idea. One of the earliest

schools featuring L-shaped classroomsconfigured like Learning Studios is theCrow Island School in Winnetka, Illinoisbuilt in 1940Figure 1-3. Today, 65 yearssince its opening, the architecture of theCrow Island School remains relevantmore so even than many of the schoolsbeing built today. In his article, "TheL-Shaped ClassroomA Pattern forPromoting Learning," Peter Lippmanmakes a strong connection between

the shape of the classroom and its abilityto function as a Learning Studio withmultiple activity centers.

Figure 1-4 shows the characteristics of aLearning Studio and Figure 1-5 shows thattwo Learning Studios can be arrangedto form a "Learning Suite." This is furtherdescribed by two floor plans. The first

12. Seminar-style instruction13. Community service learning14. Naturalist learning15. Social/emotional learning16. Art-based learning17. Storytelling (floor seating)18. Learning by buildinghands on

learning

A traditional cells-and-bells design willcome up short against the above listbecause it is primarily set up for the lectureformat. In Figures 1-1 and 1-2, we see thatthe traditional model can be pushed sothat at least some of the new learningmodalities can be accommodated.

This does not preclude the need to ask:

Is the classroom obsolete? At some purelevel, the answer to that question wouldbe yes. But at a more practical level, wehave to accept the reality that there aremillions of classrooms already built in thiscountry with thousands being addedconstantly.

The Learning StudioGiven that the "classroom" itself willcontinue in some iteration into the


Figure 1-4. Design Pattern #1c: Learning Studio.

Figure 1-3. Exterior of L-shaped classrooms,Crow Island School in Winnetka IL. One of thefirst schools to feature the L-shaped LearningStudio. Architect: Perkins, Wheeler & Will, andSaarinen.


21/33

illustrates one application of a LearningStudio. Figure 1-6 shows the plan for anAdvanced Learning Modulewhich is anew generation of modular classroomsand schools now under developmentto meet temporary school needs. Thisirregular plan creates breakout spacesand flexible learning zones that support

a significant number of the learningmodalities from the above list.

The Learning Suite

The second plan shows how a LearningSuite might look. Figure 1-7 shows aplan prepared for East Side High Schoolin Newark, NJ and illustrates how twoLearning Studios can be combined tocreate a Learning Suite. It illustrates

how a Learning Studio-based plan canbe quite "rich" as far as activities go.East Side's Learning Studios are idealfor project-based learning. The twoLearning Studios create a Learning Suite


Figure 1-5. Design Pattern #1d: Learning Suite.

Figure 1-6. Learning Studio-based design for Advanced Learning Environment Solutions, Inc.Planning and Design: Fielding Nair International for Deployables, LLC.


22/33

As the above discussion and plansillustrate, it is possible to create Learning

Suites using either moveable walls ormobile furniture. The East Side HighSchool Learning Suite (Figure 1-7) andthe Goa International School LearningSuite (Figure 12-2 in Pattern #12) showLearning Suites that use moveable walls,and the Tajimi example (Figure 1-8) usesmobile furniture. The key differencebetween these two approaches is

that spills over into adjacent areas forboth indoor and outdoor learning.

Figure 1-8 is a further development of thisconcept. In this case, the plan for TajimiJunior High School in Tajimi-shi, Gifu,Japan shows a Learning Suite wherethe boundaries of each classroom aremore fluid and easier to change on aday-to-day basis because it is definedby furniture and not by walls.


Figure 1-7. Learning Suite design for project based learning for East Side High School in Newark, NJ.Planner: Fielding Nair International. Please note that the placement of several computers along thewall was a school district requirement. This is NOT the recommended way to incorporate technol-ogy into a Learning Suite. The preferred method is to use mobile computers that can be deployedanywhere in the room with wireless networking. One or two hard-wired desktops are ok but theseshould be grouped in a way that encourages collaboration.

Deciduous treesprovide vista and shade

Communications

& Multi-media

Journalism

Full-height glassdoors withtransoms abovefor daylighting

Low plantingsunder windows

View windows &

transoms abovefor daylighting

ProductionEditing

Screening Room

Ceiling-mounted

data projector

Interviews,creative think-tank & journalistslounge

Editorial Forum24 x 60 student desks arrangedfor seminar

0 2 4 8 12 feet

Indoor/outdoor portable stage

Low bookshelves

CriticalReview

Standingheightproject

tables andstools

Portable stair

Sink & water fountain

Teacher workstation

Scripts & Final Editing

Folding Wallhigh acoustical rating. threecenter panels are white boardwith tack board above and atside panels

Collating & distributionstanding-height table with stoolsand storage beneath

Triple sliding white board withtack board at sides; mediumtexture allows for use asprojection surface

Full-height glass pane

Lockable StorageCabinet60 W X 84 H X 24 D

Teacher workstation

Computer stations28 inch high countercombination wall cabinets andopen book shelves aboveIndoor/

outdoor seating

City Desk


23/33

that moveable furniture is typicallyexperienced as a friendlier way tocreate a suite, whereas the moveablewall is more mechanistic and makes thedivision between Learning Studios morerigid.

The choice between the two approaches

comes down to philosophical andoperational issues. The more flexiblefurniture-based model is appropriatewhen the two Learning Studios aremore likely to operate as one largerentity with the teachers working in closecollaboration with each other. In this typeof situation, the acoustical separationafforded by the moveable wall is not


much of an issue. Students get used tousing their "indoor voices" much as theywould in a family-type situation with therealization that the Learning Suite catersto many different learning activitiesdispersed between the two studios.

More traditional schools that are

exploring the idea of team teaching andcollaboration between classes, while stillwishing to preserve the separation andindependence of classrooms or LearningStudios as distinct units, will prefer themodel with moveable walls.

Once we have repaired the basic buildingblock of schoolthe classroomit is

Figure 1-8. Learning Suite at Tajimi Junior High School in Tajimi-shi, Gifu, Japan. Architect: Atelier Zo.


24/33

easier to move the school design to awhole new levelstill not a completelynew paradigm, but much closer thanthe cells-and-bells model.

Small Learning Community Model

Figure 1-9 shows a Learning Studio-basedSmall Learning Community (SLC). This

pattern takes the finger plan and makesit whole so that students occupying anSLC (in a finger arrangement or anyother such separate grouping) can trulyfeel that they belong to that SLC. Forthis to work, each SLC needs to besomewhat complete.

For example, a Learning Studio-basedSLC might contain its own science room,

its own teacher workroom with thetransparency needed for the space toserve as "eyes on the street," its own toilets,its own science lab and its own centralmulti-purpose social space that canbe used for project work, independentstudy, distance learning, collaborativework, technology-based work and soon.Figure 1-9 shows a simpler arrangement

than the SLC described above withLearning Studios clustered around smallgroup rooms and a caf which doubles

2

as a project area. But even at thissimple level, it is possible to create aneffective SLC.

This particular pattern could be modifiedto show each SLC having its own directconnection to the outdoors. Additionally,each Learning Studio itself could havean outdoor connection.

The floor plan (Figure 1-10) andphotograph of the Djidi Djidi AboriginalSchool in Australia (Figure 1-11) featureanother example of how Learning Studioscan be combined with other common

spaces to create self-contained SmallLearning Communities.

We have utilized one more image torepresent the SLC model. Figure 1-12, theHigh Tech Middle School in San Diego,California illustrates how a common areashared by an SLC might be used.

SLCs and the Learning Street: In thediscussion of Small Learning Communities,the operative word is "small." The idea,always, is to create small groupingswhere everyone knows everyone else.Of course, the best way to achievesmallness is to make the school itselfsmallso that the SLC and the school referto the same thing. However, a majorityof school districts that are creating SLC's


Figure 1-9. Design Pattern #1e: Learning Studio-based Small Learning Community (SLC).

Figure 1-10. Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School designplan based on Design Pattern #1e, Picton,Western Australia. Architect: Edgar Idle Wade.


25/33

every neighborhood represents a SmallLearning Community. It is impossible toput such a neighborhood/town concept

are doing so by breaking up largerschools into smaller communities on thesame campus. It is rare to see truly small

public schools that could themselvesqualify as SLCs. We are not going totackle the question of small vs. big in thisbookthat subject is covered well in theKnowledgeWorks publication "Dollarsand SenseThe Cost Effectiveness ofSmall Schools," which is included in thereference list at the end of this book.

Given today's reality that a majorityof this country's schools are large andthat communities will continue to buildlarge schools, we feel that it is importantto see how to preserve the benefits ofSLCs in the larger schools.

One way to think about a large schoolis that it is a small town comprisedof distinct neighborhoodswhere


Figure 1-11. Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School, a Learning Studio-based SLC. (Photo Courtesy of Edgar IdleWade Architects.)

Figure 1-12. Shared social and learning spaceoutside Learning Studios at High Tech MiddleSchool in San Diego, CA. Architect: CarrierJohnson. (Photo Courtesy of Bill RobinsonPhotography.)


26/33

look traditional have already begunto do organizationallygroup studentsinto advisories instead of classes orhomerooms.

The Advisory pattern shown here (Figure1-13) describes how eight groups of10 to 15-student Advisories might be

arranged around a central caf andproject area. This particular diagramalso shows four breakout areaswhichcould be collaborative spaces with softseating and an area for presentations.Each breakout space is shared by twoAdvisories under the suggested pattern.Since this is intended to be a rudimentarypattern, details have not been shown,such as an Advisory workstation for eachteacher/advisor, a closed but partition-able seminar room that can be usedfor lectures and perhaps for distancelearning, separate from project labs and"messy" areas.

The plan for the High School forRecording ArtsHip-Hop High (Figure1-14) and the photo of students at their

into practice, however, without firstthinking about the "connectors" thattie the neighborhoods together. Thereare many ways in which schools cantackle the issue of connectorsbut,whenever possible, opportunities shouldbe explored to make the connectorsinto one or more unifying elements that

give the larger school its identity.

Along these lines, an interesting ideathat has been gaining currency is thenotion of a Learning Street referred toearlier, which, like the Main Street inmost small towns, becomes the unifyingelement that ties the town's variousneighborhoods together and gives thetown its identity.

We think that the Learning Street idea isstill in its infancy in the school design worldthough the idea of unifying elementsitself is not new. We have not raised theLearning Street to the level of a specificDesign Pattern in this book, but it maywell become one in a future edition.For now, we have acknowledged theimportance of the Learning Street byincluding at the end of this book, a

slightly modified version of an articlewe published on DesignShare.com inFebruary 2005.

We have provided a few illustrations ofwhat a Learning Street might look likebut we encourage our readers to submitmore examples to us that we can sharewith all of you.

Advisory Model

Moving to the next level of development,we have a pattern that departs entirelyfrom the "classroom" and "LearningStudio" model. Figure 1-13 shows an"Advisory model" of school design.

Interestingly, this model simply representsin the built form what many schools that


Figure 1-13. Design Pattern #1f: Advisory-based

Small Learning Community (SLC).

Food &beverages

Cafe &Project Area

Break-out areashared by two

advisorygroups

AdvisoryGroupsIndividualWorkstations10 to 15 students each


27/33


Figure 1-14. Advisory-based SLC at the High School for Recording Arts (Hip-Hop High). Architect:Randall Fielding, Fielding Nair International.

0 2 4 8 16 feet

Basket BallHoop

AdvancedStudio

Glass-panel

Vocal

Booth

Pre-Production

Studio A

4 ft. wide door; all newinterior doors to be woodand glass with maximumview area.

NetworkServer

Cafe

MovableWall

Demountable

Ramp

Ceiling-MountedComputer

Projector

All-SchoolMeeting Area,

PerformanceSpaceandProject Tables

Lockers

One-way GlassViewing Bay

Stained Concrete Floor

Air Supply &Return

CorrugatedSteelInfill Panel

Carpet Full-View GlassOverheadRolling Door

White Board

White Board

White Board

Couches

Couch &Arm Chairs

TeacherTeacher

Teacher

Elec.

Teacher

Advisories 1 & 2

Advisory Groups &

Student WorkstationsEach learner will have his own workstation andwill share a computer with an adjacent learner.Laptop computers and a wireless network willalso allow students to work at round tables,couches and on project tables.Advisory GroupsEach Advisory Group is comprised of 15 studentsand a teacher. Advisory Groups are paired sothat a single teacher may advise two groups.

N

ExerciseEquipment

CD Cover Mural

DemountableStage

ProjectionScreen

Teacher

Advisories 5 &

Graffiti Wall Equipment StorageBlack vinyl-coated chainlink fence and gate.

DesktopsThe pre-used desks, donated by a local bank,are 72 X 42. All tops are a neutral color; thecolors shown indicate variations in partitioncolors.

Low-height Partitionsof varying heights, located between desksare constructed of tackable, sound absorbingpanels, made from recycled newspaper, andcorrugated, wavy metal industrial siding.


28/33

workstations (Figure 1-15) shows an

Advisory grouping next to a performancearea that comes close to representing inbuilt form, what Figure 1-13 is trying toaccomplish diagrammatically.

Figure 1-13 begins to take the physicaldesign of school into a functionalmodel where there is a certainhierarchy of spaces, starting with astudent workstation at the smallest

level and leaving open the possibilityof endless configurations of spaces andactivities. This model makes learning thecenterpiece of the design intent andbuilds the plan around learning activities,rather than a theoretically appropriatebuilding block like the classroom. (Seethe 18 learning modalities discussedearlier.)

The plan for Harbor City International

School (Figure 1-16) is another exampleof the Advisory model and shows howit allows for a much more efficient useof spaces than a traditional classroommodel. The Harbor City plan is rarein that it has no corridors and utilizesalmost every square foot of space forlearning.


Figure 1-15. Photograph of Advisory groupings showing individual workstations at Hip-Hop High.


29/33


Figure 1-16. Advisory-based plan for Harbor City International School, Duluth, MN. Design Architect:Randall Fielding, Fielding Nair International, with Scalzo Architects.


30/33


About the Authors

Prakash Nair,Partner, Fielding Nair International.

Nair is recognized worldwide as anexpert in the areas of modern schoolplanning and educational technology.He is the recipient of several planningawards including the prestigious CEFPIMacConnell Award, the top honorworldwide for school planning anddesign. Nair worked as Director ofOperations for a multi-billion dollarschool construction program for NewYork City. His many articles about

designing schools based on establishededucational research have beenpublished by leading journals aroundthe globe.

In 2003, Nair completed a projectwith the University of Wisconsin on aRockefeller Foundation-funded grantto develop best practice standardsfor world-class schools throughout NewJersey and nationally.

Nair has served as Northeast RegionalPresident of the Council of EducationalFacility Planners International. He is therecipient of the organization's ServiceCitation and Distinguished ServiceAwards.

Nair has been invited by governmentsand professional organizations as akeynote speaker and consultant in 19states and ten countries.

Contact Prakash Nair [email protected].


31/33

11

Randall Fielding,Partner, Fielding Nair International.

Fielding wears two hats, one as anaward-winning architect and plannerworking on school projects around theworld, and another as the Founderand Editorial Director of DesignShare.com, an online journal and libraryof facility planning. DesignShare isa premier resource for research onthe design of innovative learningenvironments. The website has receivedseven awards for design and quality of

content, and receives 60,000 visitors amonth from educators, architects, andplanners worldwide. Fielding overseesDesignShare's annual internationaldesign awards program and haspublished 300 innovative school designsfrom 20 countries.

Prior to co-founding FNI, Fielding led hisown architectural practice for over 17years out of Chicago and Minneapolis.He is internationally recognized as anauthority on innovative school designand is the recipient of numerous awardsincluding the 2004 Impact on LearningAward from CEFPI and School Planningand Management Magazine. He hastaken his unique message of creativityand innovation to nine countries and

has published numerous articles onschool planning and design.

Contact Randall Fielding [email protected].



32/33


Endorsements & Sponsors

THE LANGUAGE OF SCHOOL DESIGN: DESIGN PATTERNS FOR 21ST CENTURYSCHOOLS

This book has been endorsed by:

The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, at the National Institute ofBuilding Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

KnowledgeWorks Foundation

This book has been sponsored by:

"Construction SpecialtiesCreating Products That Make Buildings Better"http://www.c-sgroup.com


33/33

In answering these quest ions authors Prakash Nair and Randal l F ielding explain how the bui l t

envi ronm ent i s no t o nl y the p l a c e o f l ea rni ng , b ut a l s o the p s y c he o f l ea rning . T hey ex p l ai n

ho w to s ha p e the b ui l d i ng s i n w hi c h w e l ea rn s o tha t they a re t ru l y the m o s t v i s i b l e

manifestation of our future aspirations as a society.

Th e L an g u ag e of S c h ool D e s i g n i s a seminal work because i t defines a new graphic vocabulary

tha t s y nthes i zes l ea rning res ea rc h w i th b es t p ra c t i c e i n s c ho ol p l a nni ng a nd d esi g n. B ut i t i smore than a book about ideas. I t i s also a practical tool and a must-have resource for al l

school stakeholders involved in planning, designing and constructing new and renovated

schools and evaluating the educational adequacy of exist ing school faci l i t ies.

" W h y d o s c h o o l s l o o k t h e w a y t h e y d o ? W h y i s t h e r e a c h a s m b e t w e e n w i d e l y

a c k n o wl e d g e d b e s t p r a c t i c e p r i n c i pl e s a n d t h e a c t u a l d e s i g n o f a m a j o r i t y o f s c h o o l

f a c i l i t ie s ? W h y h a s t h e d i s c o n ne c t b e t w e e n l e a r n i n g r e s e a r c h a n d l e a r n in g p l a c e s b e es o d i f f i c u l t t o r e p a i r? "

Prakash Nai r i s a partner wi th F i e l di ng Nai r Internat i onal , an

award-wi nni ng school pl anni ng f i rm and Managi ng Edi tor of

Desi gnS hare. com. Pr i or to that, he serv ed for 1 0 years as Di rector

of Operat i ons for New York Ci ty 's mul t i b i l l i on-doll ar school

constructi on program. Nai r i s wi del y publ i shed, has keynoted

conferences and consul ted i n 1 9 states i n the U. S . and 1 0

countr i es on four cont i nents.

Randal l F i e l di ng i s a partner wi th F i e l ding Nai r Internat ional and

the F ounder/ Edi tor i al Di rector of Desi gnS hare. com, bui l di ng i t

f rom the grai n of an i dea i n 1 9 9 8 i nto the worl d's l argest and

most prest i gious forum for i nnov at i v e schools. Before start ing

Desi gnS hare, F i e l di ng ran hi s own archi tectural consul t i ng f i rm for

1 7 i Chi F i l di i i d f th l d'


Architecture $

T h e F ol low in g We b sit e C on ta in s t h e La t e st In forma t ion a n d F e e db a ck for Sch ool D e s ign P a t t e rn La n gua g

http://DesignShare.com/Patterns

Thi s publ i cat i on i s endorsed b

The Nat i onal Cl ear i nghouse

Educational Faci l i t ies and T

KnowledgeWorks Foundati

DESIGNSHARE.CO

The Internat i onal F orum

Innovative Scho

Minneapol is, MN, U

Documents

The Language of School Design