Trends and shaping (ICT)

Educational Trends Shaping

School Planning and Design: 2007
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 888–552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
Kenneth R. Stevenson
Department of Educational Leadership and Policies
College of Education
University of South Carolina
In 2002, NCEF published Ken Stevenson’s Ten
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design,
which received considerable attention and has been
downloaded from the NCEF website by thousands of
users. Here is an update by the author, with the ten
trends expanded to twelve.
This publication, like its predecessor, examines
educational trends potentially influencing the planning
and design of school facilities. Although we
can’t know exactly how such trends might play out in the
future, their thoughtful consideration during the planning
and design process could have a profound effect on how
successfully a new or renovated school will perform over
its useful life. The trends were identified by reviewing
the latest research on school facilities and student outcomes;
current issues, problems, and initiatives in the
educational field; emerging demographic patterns; and
my previous work on this subject (Stevenson, 2002).
Trend One: “School Choice” and
“Equity” Redirect Facilities Planning
When public education was the only choice for most
children, planning for school enrollment was a relatively
simple process. Schools traditionally operated within
fixed geographic boundaries; planners used local demographic
data in combination with enrollment projection
techniques to estimate the number of students a school
was likely to serve. However, one of today’s educationalreform
trends is school choice—as opposed to school
assignment—rendering ineffective the traditional demographic
method of projecting school enrollment numbers.
Parents and policymakers around the country, unhappy
with public education, have attempted to dismantle what
they consider to be a public monopoly over the delivery
of K–12 schooling. Increasingly, they have pushed for
vouchers and tax credits that permit parental choice and
offer alternatives to the local public school.
In response, school districts have begun to move away
from the “if you live on this street, you go to this school”
rule. Instead, they offer parents options ranging from
magnet schools to charters (Shostak, 2004). One result
is that by 2005 there were approximately 3,400 charter
schools in the United States serving about 800,000
students (Carpenter, 2005). Increasingly, school systems
have embraced the concept that parents and their children
should have some choice about which school a
child attends.
What result for schools has the movement from prescribed
attendance zones to school choice created?
Great uncertainty. School planners are uncertain how
many students will actually show up at a particular
school and uncertain about what amenities that school
needs. A magnet school for the arts, for instance,
requires distinctly different spaces and equipment than a
school that emphasizes science and technology.
Growing numbers of educators and policymakers have
begun to realize that “identical” school facilities do not
translate into “equal opportunity” for students. While some
students function measurably better in one kind of environment,
others perform more effectively in another; the differences
depend on student talents, abilities, and needs.
The focus has shifted away from developing district-wide
plans providing equal facilities and toward plans providing
specialized facilities that meet schools’ individual
program needs. In the past, a good district facilities
plan provided schools with similar features as a matter
of fairness and equality. If School A had two gyms,
the facilities plan ensured that School B also had two
gyms. Today’s trend calls instead for equity, defined as
sufficient amenities to support and maintain the unique
program and intended audience of a particular school.
As a result of school choice and equity trends, planners and
educators may increasingly find themselves challenged to
develop individualized renovation and construction plans
that support a particular school’s distinctive mission.
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning 2
and Design: 2007
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 888–552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
Trend Two: Small May Trump Large
The educational literature abounds with articles that promote
the virtues of small neighborhood schools (Raywid
1998; Cotton 2001; VanderArk, 2002; Toch, 2003).
Some states—notably, Florida—have even tried unsuccessfully
to mandate uncommonly low school enrollments
(Matus, 2005). In the next 25 years it may not
be unusual to see elementary schools housing an average
of 200 students, middle schools with no more than
400 to 500 students, and high schools with 500 to 750
students.
Supporters of the trend argue that small schools are
particularly good at improving the academic achievement
for students who have not done well in traditional
settings, and that small schools have higher graduation
rates, promote greater student involvement in co-curricular
activities, and experience improved student behavior
(Wasley, 2002; et. al.). Supporters also believe that
since children are better known to teachers and administrators
in small schools, they are safer and receive more
individualized instruction.
Will the interest in smaller schools continue? That
depends on at least two considerations. First, research
findings are mixed about whether small or large schools
actually produce better academic results (Stevenson,
2006a). Second, even if small schools are found to produce
superior academic outcomes, the cost of building
them may be too great. Many communities have aging
populations who have no direct school contact and may
be reluctant to levy school tax increases. This could
have a dramatic negative effect on the small schools
movement. The counterargument contends that if small
schools demonstrably produce higher graduation rates,
in the long run they cost communities less than do large
schools.
For this combination of reasons, planners and educators
need to discuss optimum school size when developing a
long-range facilities program.
Trend Three: Reduced Class Sizes?
Maybe
There is also substantial interest in smaller class sizes
(Achilles, 2003). Significant research demonstrates that
smaller-class benefits not only include enhanced academic
performance but improved student behavior and
teacher morale (Finn & Pannozzo, 2003). A few studies
further suggest that such classes particularly benefit atrisk
students (Nye, Hedges, & Konstantopoulos, 2004).
Future growth of the movement to lower teacher-pupil
ratios depends on at least two factors. First, smaller
classes cost more because they require not only more
classrooms but also more teachers. As in the case of
the smaller-schools trend, an aging population may be
reluctant to support increased school taxes. Second,
not all research supports the contention that small class
size is better. In a recent review of 19 class-size studies
by the Center for Public Education (2005), some studies
found no linkage between student achievement and
lower teacher-pupil ratios. As Schneider (2002, p. 16)
stated succinctly, “The class size debate is unresolved,
although few would argue against smaller classes where
possible. This is an educational issue that has serious
impact on school planning and design, since smaller
classes require more classrooms or more schools, a
fact that may seem self-evident but is often lost in the
debate.”
Political pressure to reduce the number of children in a
classroom will persist, however, because many parents,
teachers, policymakers, and certain researchers are convinced
smaller class sizes can enhance learning, teaching,
and the general quality of life within schools. Before
building new schools or adding to existing ones, planners
and educators should thoroughly explore how to optimize
class size, while bearing in mind the possibility of a
diminishing tax base and conflicting research about what
the definition of “optimal” class size should be.
Trend Four: Technology Goes
Big Time
School districts will need to develop effective methods
to control costs caused by more-numerous neighborhood
schools, lower teacher-pupil ratios, higher energy
costs, and reduced tax revenues. One solution would be
by means of virtual education, or “e-schooling” (Berge
& Clark, 2005). Students seeking more specialized or
advanced courses would take classes via closed circuit
television or the Internet. Since these are packaged
courses, they would require fewer personnel, a cost
savings for the school.
Another cost-control possibility may be the use of computers,
networks, and software to deliver basic educational
programs within the school (Snyder, 2004). For
example, instead of four teachers delivering instruction
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design: 2007 3
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 (888) 552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
to 100 fourth-grade students, schools may have one
master teacher and a team of teaching assistants who
help students use packaged courses to gain knowledge
or skills in a particular subject. The master teacher works
like a doctor, diagnosing and determining treatment,
assigning all but the most complex educational intervention
procedures to others. While this approach has been
discussed for 20 years, advances in technology have
made the likelihood of this instructional model not only
possible but also probable.
There needs to be substantial conceptual rethinking of
school buildings and the spaces they contain. Teacher
preparation and staff development for the effective
use of technology will become high priorities (Davis &
Roblyer, 2005). Planners and designers should create
the most flexible school facilities possible to accommodate
the shifting landscape of instructional practices and
technology.
Trend Five: The Mission May Change
In many cases, school buildings must accommodate
a change in mission. Schools attempting to maximize
standardized achievement test scores, for instance, may
need to modify their curricula (Dillon, 2006). Students
with academic difficulties may be required to take
additional courses in their problem areas. To enhance
their scores on state or national tests, students may be
required, for instance, to sign up for a second course in
math rather than taking art as an elective. Even students
doing well in math or science may be encouraged to
take more math and science, rather than non-academic
electives, to raise their school’s academic profile. As
schools increase the focus on traditional academic subjects,
demand for music, art, vocational courses, and
even physical education may diminish. It is possible to
envision some schools comprised primarily of academic
classrooms, with few spaces for “non-essential” subjects.
Indeed, in some charter schools this is now the
case.
Or, paradoxically, traditional academic classrooms may
largely disappear, replaced by holistic learning labs and
exploratory centers (Butin, 2000; Keep, 2002). To support
this approach, classrooms must be multi-purpose,
allowing a blending of traditional instruction with meaningful
and diverse hands-on, lab-type experiences that
include anything from potterymaking to dramatic arts.
Schools in this mold provide a physical environment that
stimulates creativity and fosters a sense of belonging
(Jarman, Webb, and Chan, 2004).
Regardless of their educational focus, many schools
are being opened for community use (Sullivan, 2002;
Bingler, 2003). Classrooms used during the day by
students may be occupied by community organizations
at night. Adults in the neighborhood may drop by the
school health room for a blood pressure check with the
school nurse. Seniors may walk school corridors after
hours for exercise. When a school’s mission includes
greater community use, its classrooms and common
spaces do double duty.
Educators and planners need to keep in mind that
school missions change, and when they do spatial
requirements change with them. To the extent possible,
new schools should be planned and designed as flexibly
as possible to accommodate such changes.
Trend Six: Classrooms Are Being
Reconfigured
Traditionally, the number of students assigned to a classroom
has been largely related to creating a balanced
class for the teacher. Increasingly, however, students
are being grouped by learning styles (Porterfield, 2005).
This trend may affect school design in two ways. First,
it requires a variety of classroom sizes and configurations
to accommodate different learning styles or tasks.
Second, entire schools may be devoted to specialized
learning styles (Tileston, 2000).
For instance, students who are visual learners would
attend schools designed to support visual media.
Students who are kinesthetic learners would attend
schools designed to support physical activity. The critical
point for planners and educators is that the “one-sizefits-
all” classroom model is disappearing, and a quest
for more flexible and adaptable classroom configurations
should be part of the school planning process.
Trend Seven: Schools Go 24/7
Students are often required to spend more time at
school due to improved-education demands by policymakers
and society in general (Farbman & Kaplan,
2005). To better serve at-risk students—particularly at
the high school level—and to use buildings and classrooms
more efficiently, a greater number of districts are
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning 4
and Design: 2007
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 888–552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
implementing “twilight schools” and year-round schooling
(The Principals’ Partnership, nd). In some schools, nontraditional
students attend classes before or after work
or on weekends. When school buildings are not being
used for school functions, they often remain open to
serve community interests.
Increased school use causes more rapid wear of building
materials and equipment, so schools that are occupied
during the summer lose critical down-time for making
major repairs. Clearly, durability, energy efficiency, and
life-cycle maintenance must be major considerations
when planning and designing schools for extended use.
Trend Eight: Paper Is Disappearing
Paper-based learning materials may largely disappear
from the classroom, particularly in the higher grades.
Many reference materials, including journals and magazines,
are available now in electronic form or through the
Internet (Beare, 2001). Textbooks and workbooks may
be placed online, with students accessing them through
laptop computers at school or home (Simon, 2001).
Assignments may be submitted, graded, and returned
electronically. Enrichment and remedial instruction may
be individualized through use of academic assessment
software that provides each student with electronic
assignments tailored to his or her past performance and
learning style.
In the digital age, it is more important than ever to consider
the adequacy of electrical service, the number of
Internet connections, type and configuration of local and
wide-area computer networks, and the size and design
of classrooms and media centers. Increased use of computers
and other electronic resources affects the visual,
thermal, acoustical, and physical needs of these spaces.
Controlling glare that interferes with viewing computer
screens, installing sufficient cooling to overcome the heat
produced by electronic equipment, and providing laptop
charging stations and adequate sound treatment are
critical to providing an adequate learning environment.
In addition, schools may need additional secure storage
to accommodate an array of expensive e-learning tools,
such as electronic whiteboards. Educators and designers
need to be creative about how schools will accommodate
the e-instruction of tomorrow.
Trend Nine: Grade Spans Are
Changing
Substantial research indicates that each transition to a
new school has a negative effect on student learning
(Renchler, 2000). Some school districts are seeking to
reduce school changes by adjusting grade span configurations.
The K–8 school is staging a comeback. Some districts
are seriously considering a return to K–12 schools,
where all grades are under one roof. Revisiting the K–12
school is part of the idea of a neighborhood education
center where students can go to the same school near
their home, from kindergarten through high school
graduation.
Other school districts are moving in the opposite direction.
While K–5 or K–6 has been the standard elementary
pattern for years, more districts are splitting this
configuration to create primary and intermediate schools
(McEntire, 2002, updated 2005). The argument for this
approach is that the whole faculty of a primary school,
for example, will focus on educational techniques supportive
of early childhood education. Similar initiatives
include stand-alone sixth- and ninth-grade centers.
Changing traditional grade groupings affects the layout
and location of all the schools in a geographic area.
Hence school districts need to examine this subject
carefully before altering grade groupings.
Trend Ten: Special Education
Has Gone Mainstream
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997
required students with disabilities to be taught along with
their non-disabled peers “in the least restrictive environment
possible” (Amerman and Fleres, 2003, para. 1;
Ansley, 2000; Abend, 2001). Many schools, however,
continue to be constructed and operated in ways that
physically and socially isolate disabled children from their
non-disabled peers.
A traditional school layout is easily identified because it
has a separate wing or pod for special-needs students.
Special education children who do get included in
standard classroom activities often travel from one end
of the school to the other to get to their classrooms.
These classrooms are designed for one teacher and 20
to 25 students, so when a special education teacher
attempts to work with a mainstreamed special-needs
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design: 2007 5
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 (888) 552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
child in a classroom setting, the lack of appropriately
designed space creates conflicts with the ongoing
instructional activities of the primary teacher. In such
cases both the primary and special education teachers
feel their children have been slighted.
This is no small concern. Currently nearly seven million
students ages six through 21 have been identified
through IDEA as requiring special instruction (Adams,
2006). That is, approximately 12 out of every 100 students
in school must be provided with special services
to address their disabling condition in a way that allows
them to be socially, emotionally, and physically a part of
the school as a whole. Most experts agree that the percentage
of students identified as disabled will continue
to grow in the coming decades.
What does this mean for planners and educators?
Schools housing disabled students should be designed
or modified with these children in mind, and should
include a seamless interface between special education
services and standard classroom instruction (Abend,
2001). Special classrooms for most, if not all, classifications
of disabilities should be intermingled with general
instructional spaces. Classrooms and laboratories should
be designed so that disabled students and their teachers
are comfortably and effectively included in the instructional
activities that support the school’s curriculum.
Trend Eleven: Early Childhood
Programs? Plan On Them
In many school districts, mandatory kindergarten for
five-year-olds was unusual until a few years ago. Now
talk abounds of expanding early childhood programs to
include three- and four-year-olds and, in some cases,
babies and toddlers (Wilen, 2003). At a time when highstakes
testing drives educational accountability, one key
argument for universal schooling of pre-kindergarteners
is this: Children who do not come to school ready to
learn are destined to struggle throughout their educational
experience, and are more likely to fail.
While not everyone agrees that such early intervention
is necessary, many states are either considering
or actively pursuing no-cost, high-quality preschool for
all three- and four-year-olds (Pascopella, 2004, para.
4). With increased national attention on the pre-school
years, educators and design professionals should carefully
consider how and when to provide sufficient space
to house this new population. The design of such facilities
needs to ensure that age-appropriate developmental
activities, many of which require considerable space and
storage, can be carried out effectively in early childhood
classrooms.
Trend Twelve: School Is Where the
Hearth Is
The preceding trends suggest ways schools are changing,
but another scenario exists: Schools as we know
them will disappear altogether (Northwest Educational
Technology Consortium, 2002; Stevenson, 2006b). With
the rapid development of technology and the increasing
lack of confidence parents have in public education, the
disappearance of the brick-and-mortar structure called
school is not implausible.
Imagine a child entering a quiet place at home where
teachers and fellow students are present only on a
computer screen. The child has access to lessons prepared
by the most knowledgeable professionals in the
world and can interact electronically with teachers and
students anywhere, on any appropriate subject. This
virtual classroom is already a reality. Parents who homeschool
increasingly use electronic media and the Internet
to access instructional materials. Students in remote
areas of Canada and Australia, hundreds of miles from
a school building, attend school by logging on to their
computers. Technology allows high school students in
rural Kansas to take a course online from “classrooms”
anywhere in the world.
Begging the question of who—or what—will assume
responsibility for the socialization process traditionally
assigned to schools, should school buildings be designed
as traditional learning environments or as production and
broadcast centers? Considering that schools have a life
span of a half century or more, school districts might
give at least some thought to how its buildings someday
might be adapted to alternative educational, community,
or private sector use.
Examine Trends and Question
Authority
These twelve trends have the potential for making
schooling in America unrecognizable within a few
decades, so it behooves educators and planners to ask
continually:
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning 6
and Design: 2007
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 888–552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
• What is emerging in educational practice that
affects the ways we think about schools?
• How is the demographic composition of our community
changing the way education should be
delivered?
• What will future taxpayers be willing to support?
• Can education be delivered in a more efficient,
effective manner?
The quality of answers to these questions will determine
how well tomorrow’s school facilities will support the
educational needs of the twenty-first century.
References
Abend, A. 2001. Planning and designing for students
with disabilities. Washington, D.C.: National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/disabilities.pdf
Achilles, C. 2003. How class size makes a difference.
What the research says. The impact of class-size reduction.
New York: SERVE.
Adams, C. 2006, June. The new realities: Special needs.
Scholastic Administrator, 5(8), 41-46.
Amerman, T., & Fleres, C. 2003, Fall. A winning combination:
Collaboration in inclusion. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 7(3), 66-70.
Ansley, J. 2000. Creating accessible schools.
Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/accessibility.pdf
Beare, H. 2001. Creating the future school. London:
Routledge-Falmer Press.
Berge, Z., & Clark, T. 2005. Virtual schools. Planning for
success. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bingler, S., Quinn, L., & Sullivan, K. 2003. Schools as
centers of community: A citizen’s guide for planning and
design. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/scc_publication.pdf
Butin, D. 2000. Classrooms. Washington, D.C.: National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/classrooms.pdf
Carpenter, B. 2005, May. Charter schools: Thirteen years
and still growing. The Hartland Institute.
http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm?artId=16886
Center for Public Education 2005. Class size and student
achievement. Author. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.
org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1533647/k.3B7C/
Class_size_and_student_achievement.htm
Cotton, K. 2001. New small learning communities:
Findings from recent literature. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
http://www3.scasd.org/small_schools/nlsc.pdf
Davis, J. 2006, February 28. The promise of extended-
time schools for closing the education gap.
Massachusetts 2020 Foundation.
www.mass2020.org/Promise%20of%20ETS%20(Speech
%20to%20NAYRE%2002.06).doc
Davis, N., & Roblyer, M. 2005, Summer. Preparing
teachers for the “schools that technology built”:
Evaluation of a program to train teachers for virtual
schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 37(4), 399-409.
Dillon, S. 2006, March 26. Schools cut back subjects to
push reading and math. The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com
Finn, C., & Pannozzo, G. 2003, Fall. The “why’s” of
class size: Student behavior in small classes. Review of
Educational Research, 73(3), 321-368.
Jarman, D., Webb, L., & Chan, T. 2004, June. A beautiful
school is a caring school. School Business Affairs.
http://asbointl.org/asbo/files/ccPageContent/
DOCFILENAME/000000007496/SBA_June_04_
Beautiful_School.pdf
Keep, G. 2002. Buildings that teach. The Educational
Facilities Planner, 37(2).
http://sbw.cefpifoundation.org/pdf/BuildingsTeach.pdf
Matus, R. 2005, January 12. Schools find success in
becoming smaller. St. Petersburg Times.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/12/Tampabay/Schools_
find_success_.shtml
McEntire, N. 2002, updated 2005. Grade configurations
in K–12 schools. Clearinghouse on Early Education and
Parenting.
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/poptopics/gradeconfig.html
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design: 2007 7
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 (888) 552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. 2002.
Virtual schools: What do educational leaders need to
know? Symposium at the 2002 NCCE Conference,
Seattle, Washington.
http://www.netc.org/presentations/ncce/2002/nccenotes.pdf
Nye, B., Hedges, L., & Konstantopoulos, S. 2004,
November-December. Do minorities experience larger
lasting benefits from small classes? The Journal of
Educational Research, 98(2), 94-100.
Pascopella, A. 2004, August. Universal early education
point/counterpoint: Is early childhood education outright
dangerous or the pivotal path to educational glory? Two
experts debate. District Administration, 40(8), 28-31.
Porterfield, L. 2005, August 15. Design for learning.
Today’s educational facilities–not your parents’ school
anymore. CNN: Education with Student News
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/08/12/design.style/
Raywid, M. 1998. Small schools: A reform that works.
Educational Leadership, 55(4), 34-39.
Renchler, R. 2000. Grade span. ERIC Research
Roundup, 16(3).
http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.html
Schneider, M. 2002. Do school facilities affect academic
outcomes? National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf
Shostak, A. 2004, November-December. High schools
for futurism: Nurturing the next generation. The Futurist,
23-27.
Simon, E. 2001. Electronic textbooks: A pilot study of
student e-reading habits. Institute for Cyber-Information.
Snyder, D. 2004, January. A look at the future: Is technology
the answer to education’s long-term staffing
problems: American School Board Journal.
http://www.asbj.com/2004/01/0104technologyfocus.html
Stevenson, K. 2002. Ten educational trends shaping
school planning and design. Washington, D.C.: National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/trends.pdf
Stevenson, K. 2006a. School size and its relationship
to student outcomes and school climate: A review and
analysis of eight South Carolina state-wide
studies. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/size_outcomes.pdf
Stevenson, K. 2006b. Educational facilities within the
context of a changing 21st century America. Washington,
D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/Ed_Facilities_in_21st_
Century.pdf
Sullivan, K. 2002, October. Catching the age
wave: Building schools with senior citizens in mind.
Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities.
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/agewave.pdf
The Principals’ Partnership. nd. Research brief: Twilight
schools. Union Pacific Foundation.
http://www.principalspartnership.com/twilightschools.pdf
Tileston, D. 2000. Ten best teaching practices: How
brain research, learning styles, and standards define
teaching competencies. Thousand Oaks, California:
Corwin Press.
Toch, T. 2003. High schools on a human scale: How
small schools can transform American Education.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Vander Ark, T. 2002. The case for small high schools.
Educational Leadership, 59(5), 55-59.
Wasley, P. 2002, February. Small classes, small schools:
The time is now. Educational Leadership, 59(5), 6-10.
Wilen, J. 2003. Ready for school: The case for including
babes and toddlers as we expand preschool opportunities.
Chicago, Illinois: Ounce of Prevention Fund.
Educational Trends Shaping School Planning 8
and Design: 2007
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005–4905 888–552–0624 www.edfacilities.org
About the Author
Kenneth R. Stevenson is a professor at the University of
South Carolina where he chairs the Department of
Educational Leadership and Policies in the College of
Education. He is also an educational planner and consultant
to school districts for educational management,
school facilities, and technology evaluation.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the research assistance
of Toni Giacopelli in the development of this
publication, reviewers Pamela Loeffelman and William
Brenner, and editor and graphic designer Marcia
Axtmann Smith.
Sponsorship and Copyright
Published by the National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities (NCEF), under a grant from the U.S.
Department of Education. ©2006 by the National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. All rights
reserved.
Availability
NCEF publications are available at http://www.edfacilities.
org/pubs/ or by calling 888-552-0624 (toll-free) or 202-
289-7800.