17 June 1998

Dear Dr. Carroll:

I would like to thank you for forwarding the copy of “Learning by Design” to me as a reference for further developing my ideas. Upon reviewing the journal, I indeed did find some designs which I feel reflect some of the concepts that I am attempting to express. At the same time, these projects promote a physical and educational flexibility that I suspect will be necessary over the life-term of this structure, while preserving much of the original footprint of the existing structure. Essentially, my beliefs about the design of the new structure embrace several broad categories:

The Educational Factors

• The structure and concept of high school is very likely to undergo significant changes in the next decade. Our new architecture must easily accommodate potential changes such as:
  • flexible scheduling,
  • flexible school year (year-round operation),
  • an interdisciplinary curriculum,
  • cooperative and collaborative learning,
  • increased programs and initiatives with the community, including internships/externships, community education and cultural events.

The Technology Factors

• heavy integration of multi-level interactive technologies,
• extensive networking, including multiple delivery systems and alternative educational settings (distance learning, home-schooling/tele-commuting, etc.).

The Environmental Factors

• our obligation to construct environmentally-friendly structures that recognize sustainable-living practices,
• the need to see schools as “user-friendly workplaces” with appropriate ergonomic and aesthetic considerations.

The Cost Factors

• the need to build a quality structure that will enable the community to realize the greatest possible long-term investment.

Central to all of this is one dominant theme: Flexibility is the key. As we move into the new millennium, acknowledging the current pressures on the educational system, we can predict with some certainty that the educational paradigm will shift to new and more efficient models.

As support for this thinking I refer you to “Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution”, a joint report co-authored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This report, which was published in 1996, specifically focuses on the high school for the 21st century. There are a number of common themes which surface throughout the report but my attention was caught by the section on “Organization and Time: Restructuring Space and Time for a More Flexible Education”. In particular, the following comments speak to our situation:

The manner in which a high school organizes itself and the ways in which it uses time create a framework that affects almost everything about teaching and learning in the school.

1. High schools will create small units in which anonymity is banished.
2. Each high school teacher involved in the instructional program on a full-time basis will be responsive for contact time with no more than 90 students during a given term so that teacher the teacher can give greater attention to the needs of every student.
3. High schools will develop flexible scheduling that allows for more varied uses of time in order to meet the requirements of the core curriculum.
4. The Carnegie unit will be redefined or replaced so that high schools no longer equate seat time with learning.
5. The high school will reorganize the traditional departmental structure to meet the needs of a more integrated curriculum.
6. Each school will present alternatives to tracking and to ability grouping without restricting the range of courses and learning experiences it offers.
7. The academic program will extend beyond the high school campus to take advantage of learning opportunities outside the four walls of the building.
8. Schools will operate on a 12-month basis to provide more time for professional staff development, collegial planning, and the added instruction needed to promote better student learning.

• Treat the building as a village concept:
  • Three interconnected modules (pods), or academic houses (a campus):
    • Health/Wellness Academic House,
    • Integrated Studies Academic House,
    • Fine Arts Academic House.

  • Each academic “house” has certain common features:
    • A major architectural feature as part of the core facility:
      • Health/Wellness has the athletic complex,
      • Integrated Studies has the media center,
      • Fine Arts has the auditorium,
    • A mix of interdisciplinary classrooms to accommodate current and future curricular models,
    • Commons areas for co-curricular gatherings,
    • Lounge areas with “snack bar” food services.

  • Two of the academic houses offer expanded food service support:
    • Health/Wellness houses the home-ec curriculum and kitchen with a small dining room adjacent to the lounge;
    • Fine Arts houses the main cafeteria adjacent to the auditorium for larger cultural gatherings and primary food service.

• Apply all current environmental and sustainability-based architectural and design features to the new buildings:
  • Smaller structures may be more energy independent and energy efficient;
  • Active and passive solar techniques may have potential;
  • Academic houses (pods) will have a more user-friendly “feel”;
  • Smaller structures will have more short-term and long-term flexibility;
  • Up front costs may be greater but long-term costs will be less (This is a selling point for the community.);
  • This type of design can be “down-sized”, adapted to co-educational uses or “parceled-off” with greater ease.

• Use as much of the existing footprint as possible.

I believe that these basic concepts and the related design factors can be adapted to our current footprint and setting. Considering all of these factors, I feel the following projects from “Learning by Design” reflect elements of a design which may be adaptable to ORHS. Below find the referenced designs with a few personal notes about why they caught my attention:

Note: Some of these are elementary school designs but in my mind that is of little concern. After all, Moharimet has the most flexible design within the district and currently meets some of the design criteria outlined earlier in this letter.

• Pathfinder Elementary, Fremont, Michigan (p.63)
  • Rotate the design so that the main corridor aligns with the general line of our current building;
  • A modular “academic house” footprint;
  • Non-linear design which creates a “user-friendly” ergonomic feel;
  • Even though it doesn’t show the core that we would specify (auditorium, gymnasium), it is adaptable to these modifications;
  • Much of our current footprint could be preserved;
  • Smaller units may be more energy efficient by applying independent heating systems and newer solar and energy-efficient technologies.

• Schuylkill Valley, Leesport, Pa. (p.69)
  • Rotate the design so that the main corridor aligns with the general line of our current building;
  • Move the gym to the general location featured in the design from the March bond issue;
  • A modular “academic house” footprint that is “spoked” off a large core;
  • Essentially a non-linear design which creates a “user-friendly” ergonomic feel;
  • Even though it doesn’t show the core that we would specify (auditorium, gymnasium), it is adaptable to these modifications;
  • Much of our current footprint could be preserved;
  • Smaller units may be more energy efficient by applying independent heating systems and newer solar and energy-efficient technologies.

• Ruth Dowell Middle School, McKinney, Texas (p.97)
  • I don’t really like this design very much but it does show some potential for modifications to our current footprint. It might be capable of housing three academic houses, while minimizing changes to the existing structure;
  • Much of our current footprint could be preserved;
  • Smaller units may be more energy efficient by applying independent heating systems and newer solar and energy-efficient technologies;

• Brownsburg Junior High School, Brownsburg, Indiana (p.91)
  • Move the gym to the general location featured in the design from the March bond issue;
  • A modular “academic house” footprint that consists of three independent academic houses that are interconnected;
  • Essentially a non-linear design which creates a “user-friendly” ergonomic feel;
  • Some of our current footprint could be preserved;
  • Smaller units may be more energy efficient by applying independent heating systems and newer solar and energy-efficient technologies.

• Maple Grove High School, Maple Grove, Minnesota (p.139)
  • I’m not sure how workable this is but it is my favorite design;
  • Rotate the design so that “Family Unit#3” is located in the position of our current library;
  • Move the gym to the general location featured in the design from the March bond issue;
  • A modular “academic house” footprint that has a very interesting design;
  • Essentially a non-linear design which creates a “user-friendly” ergonomic feel;
  • Even though it doesn’t show the core that we would specify (auditorium, gymnasium), it is adaptable to these modifications;
  • Perhaps over half of our current footprint could be preserved;
  • Smaller units may be more energy efficient by applying independent heating systems and newer solar and energy-efficient technologies.

As a final note, I certainly hope that the results from the community survey do not preclude a reexamination of the “bond” design itself. In addition, I believe we ought to enlist the support of the experts on some of these matters, namely the environmental and ecological concerns. I hope that the ideas expressed here are of some value and, therefore, warrant critical examination. Thanks for taking the time to consider these thoughts about our high school. I am sharing this letter with other administrators, board members, faculty, and members of the community.

Sincerely,
Paul Gasowski

Last update on 30-Mar-99 at 10:57 PM.

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/gasowski_980617.html

This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.