Recent trends in educational planning and facility design are focusing on small learning communities. Particular emphasis has been placed at the high school level. Whereas this is an important aspect of education, high school communities must be seen as the culmination of an integrated curriculum and technology-rich educational process that began with kindergarten/elementary levels and continued through the middle school. Then, and only then, does it morph properly to the upper-level high school grades.

In short, small learning community success at the high school level does not begin with ninth grade. Rather it must be introduced at the earliest elementary grades in an age-appropriate manner and matriculate properly through middle school. The pedagogy must foster the inherent patterns of learning that create patterns for design into the high school grades and beyond.

This is the first article in a five-article series that will explore the entire K-12 educational pattern, which is then combined with appropriate functional facilities to sustain and enhance a whole-systems approach to learning and educational achievement within small learning communities.

A seamless K-12 pattern for learning must be the foundation that creates the patterns for design. “Form must follow function.”

Traditional K-12 model

Graphic #1 below shows the traditional K-12 learning model that has dominated educational delivery for decades. The chart is broken into three basic categories: elementary, junior high, and high school.

The chart reflects the following grade-level characteristics:

Elementary Grades: Elementary grades were divided into two levels, primary (1 – 3) and intermediate (4 – 6). The primary grades acted as a totally self-contained learning environment with art and music often instructed within the classroom itself by a visiting teacher. These grades even had their own restrooms and sinks. The intermediate grades offered core subjects within the classroom with students departing the classroom for art, music, and P.E. Intermediate classrooms may have had a sink only.

Junior High: Junior high schools acted, as the title suggested, a “mini” high school. Students would have as many as 7 to 9 different classes daily. They were randomly scheduled and there was no pre-determined correlation between the subjects. The teachers seldom, if ever, attempted to integrate the curriculum beyond their specific subject.

High School: High school was subject and course credit driven. The classes were totally content independent and randomly scheduled. Oftentimes, subject difficulty was stratified based on student ability or college preparatory instruction. Special education was totally segregated as was vocational education.

In short, this traditional model exemplified what has often been referred to as the “industrial” model.

A K-12 integrated learning system – Technology of the 1980s

In the 1980s, the advent of a variety of instructional technologies from computer-based word processing to LEGO-LOGO robotics, and even Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego software, encouraged the elementary grades to quickly adapt to a more integrated curricular style. Integrating technology with curriculum was reflected in both the production of products as well as the stimulation of academically-related problem-solving skills. Even kinesthetic integration of problem solving was incorporated into the elementary classroom through the use of LEGO-LOGO robotics developed at the MIT Media Lab under Dr. Seymour Pappert. This technology/ integration/ problem-solving integration formulated at the elementary grades became the basis for educational delivery from the 1980s through to the present and continued to “mature” and make age-appropriate applications into the middle and high school grades.

Ultimately, the entire K-12 curriculum took on a new format for delivery and functionality. Graphic #2 below shows one depiction of how the curriculum, technology, and functionality began to change.

Early Elementary: These grades remained self-contained but began to integrate the use of keyboarding and modest instructional software as an enhancement to the instructional process.

Intermediate Elementary: Intermediate grades four and five took on a more enhanced educational delivery system, which included word processing, electronic data access software, e.g., Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego, and LEGO-LOGO robotics. This software was also able to enhance the in-classroom integration of art and science. Finally, elementary grade levels oftentimes began to mainstream special education students because instructional technology, when properly implemented, could allow special needs students with individual educational programs (IEPs) to successfully be included as part of a mainstream classroom.

Sixth Grade: Teachers began teaming based on subject expertise, not as elementary generalists. Sixth grade began to reflect an enhanced opportunity to focus on language arts and social studies separately from math and science by incorporating a paired teaching strategy with one teacher focusing on math and science with the other on language arts (social studies and English). This sixth grade strategy was reflected in a variety of keynote facility adjustments that could be applied either to a K-6 grade configuration school, or within the context of a 6-8 middle school model.

Seventh and Eight Grades: An emerging successful extrapolation of the sixth-grade teacher pairs was the creation of the four-classroom (core subjects) middle school learning neighborhoods. Core subjects such as social studies, English, math, and science were clustered together in a fashion that allowed the integration of curriculum and technology in an emerging whole-systems approach to learning with appropriate inclusion of art, music, physical education, home economics, and industrial arts.

The importance was the emphasis on a whole-systems learning model strategy for middle school students, individual learning plans for each student, and the proper integration of technology and curriculum within the physical framework of a supportive learning environment – i.e., small learning communities.

High School: High school has now moved effectively into adopting an appropriate high-bred version of the middle school model described above. This is a unique juxtaposition of methodologies. Where once junior high was emulating high school, high school is now emulating middle school.

Each of the above-referenced elementary, middle, and high school patterns in learning has resulted in very specific facility design pattern. In the four remaining articles in the series, each grade level pattern will be dealt with in more detail. Specific design concepts will be put forth for new construction or the remodeling of existing buildings.

Finally, and most importantly, by understanding curriculum trends, technology use, and facility design opportunities comprehensively, school districts may wish to consider changing the facility planning process by cross-fertilizing elementary grade teachers when planning a middle school or including middle school teachers and staff when planning a high school. By so doing, it will enhance the opportunities to see the entire K-12 curriculum as a holistic and seamless learning system, design system, and symbiotic social system.

The subsequent articles will address the following topics.

Article 2 – Introducing the Small Learning Communities—“Elementary My Dear Watson, Elementary”

This article will focus upon specific educators who initiated landmark efforts to integrate elementary curriculum and technology in the early and mid-1980s. As technology emerged in computer-based education, laptop use, LEGO robotics, and cross-curricular integration became possible, leading educators to create “small learning communities” within the self-contained classrooms. This article will summarize the curriculum change, technology use, and important facility design implications that remain current today. Importantly, the fundamental “BOX” classroom was under assault, and alternatives shapes and clusters were tested in new and remodeled situations.

Article 3 – Middle Schools—Avoiding Anonymity through Student-Centered Relevant Learning

Middle school philosophy emerged from a realization for a need to individualize and customize learning for this unique transitional age group. Junior high models did not “connect the dots” of the learning process. This article will address the unique challenges of fifth- and sixth-grade students and their academic and technological transition to seventh and eighth grades. Specific design implications will be addressed with regard to core curricular subjects and, importantly, the potential to integrate hands-on problem-solving subjects such as technology education in lieu of industrial arts programs. Leading national middle school educators from the 1980s and ‘90s will be used as the academic framework for changing learning patterns leading to the creation of unique facility design patterns.

Article 4 – Small Learning Communities at the High School Level

Whereas many small learning communities at the high school level have been adopted as a stand-alone educational process for ninth through twelfth grades, this article will emphasize the importance of seeing the emerging high school small learning communities as part of a K-12 integrated process and even extend into business partnerships. Some educational groups have perceived that this new trend to reduce high school anonymity, violence, and the fear of isolationism combined with individualized learning plans can be arbitrarily implemented among high school teachers and students independently from a clear and recognizable whole-systems K-12 continuum. This lack of awareness of educational continuity can place undue burden upon the educators, the students, and successful technology use, and ultimately lead to mismanagement of high school facility design and implementation. This article will be based on a whole-systems K-12 continuum of learning and thus reflect a variety of instructional applications that demand a uniquely functioning learning environment. This article will utilize specific examples from nationally recognized new or remodeled high schools.

Article 5 – Business Partnerships and Community-Based Learning

The emphasis upon a K-12 integrated curriculum finds its home in many of the emerging business practices that were conceived in the 1970s and 1980s. Their reflection in the K-12 curriculum is an expected result of the total social shift to a variety of workplace models that emphasize team-based performance. Many high schools are developing high-bred versions of business education models that bring the workplace experience into the classroom and high school environment generally, while others take the learning experience from the high school to the place of work. This article will focus upon unique opportunities for designing high school environments to enhance on-site coordination with universities, business training programs, and hands-on educational experiences with local industry.

Franklin Hill & Associates provides district master plans, facility master plans, and educational specifications for new and remodeled buildings for school districts, universities, and corporations around the world. They often work directly with the educational client or as part of an architectural design team.

Franklin Hill was an early leader in the promotion of small Elementary/Middle School learning communities in the 1980’s and then focused on high school models in the 1990’s with the Disney Celebration School, Orlando, the West Jordan High Schools in Salt Lake, and the Enloe “Magnet High School of America” in Raleigh, NC. He has also included variations of this concept in several international corporate learning centers.

Frank has unique qualifications in educational curriculum, urban planning and finance. He was facility planner for the countywide 100,000-pupil Duval School System in Jacksonville, Florida. Frank’s practical experience also includes being a VP for both an architectural and program management firm

Please send your comments and ideas directly to Frank@franklinhill.com or visit his website at Franklinhill.com.