edit · history · print

NEEDS

The Stanford Schools Corporation (SSC), started in 2005 (?), is a non-profit charter management organization (CMO) run by Stanford University's School of Education (SUSE). Currently, SSC operates two schools in East Palo Alto, California. East Palo Alto Academy Elementary School (ES) currently has grades K,1, and 6, but will eventually host grades K-8. The East Palo Alto Academy High School (HS) currently has grades 9 and 10, but will eventually host grades 9-12. Both schools serve primarily low-income students of color.

Like many CMOs, SSC struggles with providing satisfactory facilities for their students. Under California's Proposition 39 (November 7, 2000) Ravenswood School District, host to ES, and Sequoia School District, host to HS, must provide "comparable" facilities to that of existing district schools. At ES the facilities consist of four portable buildings sharing a campus and cafeteria with three other schools and lacks community spaces for assemblies or all-school events. The HS occupies a wing of a former elementary school.

The current facilities poses a serious problem for SSC, its administration, faculty, and students. In order to keep up the demands of a growing student population during scale-up and maintain their top-flight academic preparation, SSC needs facilities that, at a minimum, do not hinder its academic mission. Ideally, facilities for the two schools would encourage developmentally appropriate academic learning and personal growth. SSC's ultimate need is two new buildings built to reflect SSC's philosophy of learning. Short of that, the school's need retrofits and redesigns that make their current sites more conducive to their mission.

APPROACH

When retrofitting and redesigning spaces for use by charter schools, many aspects of the learning environment and the learning process need to be considered. By focusing the actions that are desired in the space, we will address the specific needs of the school as well as increase the effectiveness of the learning spaces.

Based on Shulman’s Table for Learning, our design will include areas for:

  • Engagement and Motivation – spaces need to be created that will capture students’ interest, serve as a foundation for teacher instruction, and will hold students’ attention to the task at hand. Design Possibilities: display boards for current topics being studied, spaces for whole group gatherings and high-movement activities, and small areas for creating stations for the learning about different topics or methods of study.

  • Knowledge and Understanding – classrooms should be spaces that foster learning in all of its different capacities. Spaces are needed for individual, small group, and whole group work; these areas will encourage experimenting, visualizing, and communicating. Additionally, different learning styles need to be considered. Design Possibilities: easily move-able furniture to accommodate frequent transitions, secluded study areas, casual areas with comfortable seating, and technology areas.

  • Performance and Action - spaces need to be adaptable for many different purposes and types of working, including the fun and creative sides of learning as well as addressing the reality of activities that require high concentration and minimal distraction. Design Possibilities: table groupings that are easily reconfigured, outdoor and/or active spaces, wet/messy areas that allow for easy cleaning, bar height tables and stools that allow for standing or sitting while working, and easy access to materials for students and teachers.

  • Reflection and Critique – classrooms and collaborative spaces for adults need to create opportunities for true collaboration and reflection upon learning that has occurred. One key aspect of fostering this process is designing spaces for comparing, brainstorming, and for soliciting feedback from peers or leaders. Design Possibilities: virtual or physical display areas, gallery-type spaces, and spaces for whole group presentations and reviews.

  • Commitment and Identity – learning spaces need to promote the internalization of knowledge; this can occur through discussion, analysis, debate, or through guidance from a peer or teacher. Design Possibilities: independent, small group and whole group learning spaces, exhibition areas, virtual or physical areas for keeping records of progress made and skills learned, and spaces for sharing thinking.

BENEFITS

Our approach hinges on two key considerations: (i) Learners-first and (ii) Maximizing Adaptability of Design Features.

(i) In a learning environment, first priority goes to the learners. In ES and HS which primarily serve students of color from low income families, it is even more crucial that a conducive learning environment is created which enhances opportunities to learn and succeed as well as levels up the education playing field with other students. Our approach is sensitive to the learning needs of the students and is anchored upon learning theories, of which Shulman's taxonomy of learning is one example. As the project develops, we will continue to fine-tune the design plans, with the learners' needs in the foreground and backing provided from insights the team gain from this class.

(ii) Bearing in mind the constraints that the two schools face - of not having buildings made for purpose - our approach tries to maximize the adaptability of design features. Not having the luxury of constructing rooms for just one specific purpose, we look into innovative possibilities which allow multiple use of minimal resources.

Our client will benefit from our focus to maximize learning in our design of spaces while staying practical on the issue of resources.

COMPETITION

Competition in this case is rather complex. Most of our competition is inherent in the contracts SCC has with the Ravenswood and Sequoia school districts. Because SCC operates on a year to year contract they have no long term security in their facilities. This may inhibit the SCC from wanting to put any monetary investment into a temporary space and resort to no action. The current space they are in is ephemeral making them hesitant to invest in any type of design reforms that are not extraordinarily cheap. Because they desire common space, more competition may arise from more portables or companies that can provide very cheap, short term facilities at a low cost.

edit · history · print
Page last modified on May 08, 2007, at 11:34 AM