'
r i
-,,, •-
16'
/<*
Counci of Educational* Facility Planners International
•^United States Environment!! PrdtectidrMge*n
September 2004
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Schools for Successful Communities^
An Element of Smart Growth
September 2004
Council of Educational Facility Planners International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
The Council of Educational Facility Planners International
9180 East Desert Cove Drive, Suite 104
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Phone: (480) 391-0840
www.cefpi.org
©2004 by the Council of Educational Facility Planners International
All Rights Reserved
ISBN: 0-9753483-1-0
This publication was developed under cooperative agreement # X-83037301-1 awarded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to CEFPI
Photographs of Moore Square Museums Magnet Middle School provided by and property of Touchberry Media, Raleigh, North Carolina
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^—^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^— Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Thomas Kube
MESSAGE FROM THE PUBLISHER
Schools and their locations have a tremendous effect on how our communities grow.
The cycle of growth and development of new communities is influenced by school
sites. The resurgence of urban neighborhoods is impacted by school location and their
educational quality and condition. New schools in our cities are challenged by site
locations and limited availability of land. Rural communities also wrestle with keeping
their communities intact as growth moves in concentric rings to push the neighborhood
outside of the traditional town locations. This publication was developed to help
provide real-world, viable alternatives to communities and their citizens who want to
engage in well-planned and thoughtful growth.
The Council of Educational Facility Planners International has been engaged in the ongoing conversation about
healthy, high-performing schools, including their locations, since 1921. This publication, jointly produced with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is our effort to further add to the collective body of knowledge that
school districts and community leaders need when planning school buildings. It is our obligation to identify
balanced perspectives on school locations and the manner and means through which communities can become
engaged as they discuss these plans.
CEFPI produces a wide array of resources used expressly for helping plan, design and construct effective schools.
We view Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth as a supplement to the Council's
highly regarded Creating Connections: The CEFPI Guide for Educational Facility Planning, as it helps amplify
and focus the discussion on this particular aspect of school planning.
I believe it important to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Janell Weihs, who functioned as the Editor
in Chief for this project. And, if not for the vision of Geoffrey Anderson, director, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the help of Tim Torma, policy analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation this publication would not have been possible.
We hope that you will find this publication the resource that we intend it to be.
Thomas A. Kube, Executive Director/CEO
Council of Educational Facility Planners International
Board of Directors
President
Dr. Clacy Williams, REFP
President Elect
Hugh Skinner, REFP
Past President
Ronald Fanning, AIA, REFP
At-Large Representatives
Robert Sands Jr., REFP
Daniel Jardine, REFP
October 2004
MidWest/Great Lakes Representative
Mark Warneke, REFP
Pacific Northwest Representative
Kathy Christy, REFP
Northeast Representative
David E. Anstrand, RA, REFP
Southern Representative
Roy J. Sprague, AIA, CSI
Southeast Representative
Wayne R. Roberts, AIA
At-Large Representative
Merle Kirkley
Southwest Representative
Dale Scheideman AIA
Australasia Representative
Jeff Phillips
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
The Council of Educational Facility Planners International would like to thank Ms. Victoria Hay for her expert
editorial skills. She has been very helpful in completing several CEFPI projects. In addition, the Council would
like to recognize the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency staff members who helped with this
project: Sophie Cantell, Eric Sprague, and Amber Levofsky. The following primary authors deserve special
thanks and recognition for their dedication to the Council and to this project specifically.
Judith Hoskens, REFP
As a Recognized Educational Facility Planner (REFP) in Cuningham Group Architecture, P.A.'s Minneapolis
office, Judy has first-hand experience listening to and translating client goals and needs into unique building
solutions. Through her participation on many education projects, she has reaffirmed her belief that the best
learning facilities result from the active participation of all stakeholders, including administrators, educators,
learners, parents and community members. The outcome of her efforts can be seen in schools around Minnesota
as well as locations throughout the United States and overseas. She is an active member of the Council of
Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI), and serves the Council in many ways. Judy was the recipient
of the 2002 President's Award, which is given annually to the individual who distinguishes him/herself in service
to the Council and to the field of educational facility planning.
Barbara Kent Lawrence, Ed.D.
Dr. Barbara Kent Lawrence is a consultant, researcher and writer specializing in small schools and facilities
policies. She is the lead researcher for Dollars and Sense: The Cost-Effectiveness of Small Schools and the
author of several reports and a new book, The Hermit Crab Solution: Creative Alternative for Improving Rural
School Facilities & Keeping Them Close to Home. Dr. Lawrence is also an adjunct professor at Lesley University
teaching writing, research methods, and a course in introductory sociology.
Kelvin Lee, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Roseville, California, for 28 years, Mr. Lee won
the 1994 James MacConnell award for Heritage Oak Elementary School. He serves on numerous educational
organizations boards, including EdSource: California Department of Education, Advisory Committee for the
Public School Accountability Act of 1999; National Clearing house for Educational Facilities; and, Coalition for
Adequate School Facilities.
Jack Lyons
Mr. Lyons is a retired federal government employee who served 40 years as a public administrator and manager
in the fields of medicine, arts, and education. While at the United States Department of Education, he established
the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, which specializes in elementary and secondary education
programs. He has authored a wide variety of publications and reports, including instructional videos that have
national distribution. His public service has been recognized by a number of awards for development and
outstanding service.
Yale Stenzler, Ed.D.
Dr. Yale Stenzler established YES Consulting, LLC to provide educational facilities planning and management
consulting services. Prior to retiring in January 2003 he was the Executive Director for the State of Maryland's
Public School Construction Program and served in this capacity, under four governors, since 1981. He has over
30 years of experience in educational facility planning and management. Dr. Stenzler has worked as a consultant
providing guidance and assistance to school systems, educational institutions, federal and state agencies, and
other entities. He has made numerous presentations to local, regional, national, and international groups and has
written many articles on a broad range of subjects. He has been an active member of the Council of Educational
Facility Planners International at the regional, national, and international level for over three decades.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Megan M. Susman
Ms. Susman is an environmental policy specialist in U.S. EPA's Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation,
Development, Community and Environment Division, working on smart growth programs. Prior to joining EPA
she was with the American Institute of Architects, Center for Livable Communities, handling the research and
publications for the Center and working with its two public-service programs, disaster response and community
design assistance.
Tim Torma
Tim Torma is an environmental policy specialist in U.S. EPA's Development, Community and Environment
Division. He was the EPA project officer for this cooperative agreement. His recent work has included projects
related to environmental and health effects of school siting and research and writing on school siting and planning.
He has been a contributing writer, editor or reviewer on a wide range of growth-related publications, most recently
Getting to Smart Growth II, and Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community. His writing has also
appeared in the Washington Post. Prior to working at EPA, Mr. Torma was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Cameroon,
West Africa and a Legislative Intern in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Janell Weihs
As the Grants and Special Projects Manager for the Council of Educational Facility Planners International, Ms.
Weihs is responsible for the Council's government contracts and partnership. She has collaborated with the
National Park Service to produce two publications regarding the renovation and appraisal of older and historic
school facilities and with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Indoor Environments Division, to distribute
and implement the Tools for Schools program in districts throughout the world. Ms. Weihs is a former high school
English teacher and received a B.A. degree in English and Communications from Concordia College, Moorhead,
Minnesota, and an M.A. in Literature from Northern Arizona University.
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 7
II. The Challenge to Grow; the Opportunity to Excel 8
III. Smart Growth Principles 9
IV. The Connection: Smart Growth Principles and Community-Centered Schools 11
A. Educational Benefits 11
B. Community Benefits 13
V. Factors to Consider When Planning Community-Centered Schools 16
A. Educational Programs and Services 16
B. Student and Community Demographics 16
C. Site Size 17
D. Transportation and Parking 17
E. Community Partnerships and Co-location 18
F. Cost Comparisons 19
G. Local Planning and Zoning Ordinances 20
H. Economic Impact 21
I. Environment, Health, and Safety 21
J. Flexibility 22
VI. Local Policies That Support Smart Growth and Community-Centered Schools 23
A. Incorporate State Funds 23
B. Integrate School Construction and Renovation Plans 23
C. Create Relationships 24
D. Incorporate Community-School Principles 24
E. Incorporate Community Services and Affordable Housing 24
F. Collaborate with Neighboring Institutions 25
G. Create After-School Programs 25
H. Compare Costs Accurately 26
I. Offer Bonus Funds 26
J. Institute Safe Routes to School 26
VII. State Policies That Support Smart Growth and Community-Centered Schools 27
A. Promote School Area Safety 27
B. Require Information-Sharing and Coordinated Planning 27
C. Promote Smart Growth 27
D. Coordinate and Integrate Planning 27
E. Direct State Funds to Existing Communities 28
F. Fund Aging Schools 28
G. Cut Acreage Standards 28
H. Change Grant Criteria to Encourage Renovation 29
I. Protect Historic Schools 29
J. Fund Joint-Use Projects 29
VIII. Case Studies 30
A. The 37th Street Elementary School 31
B. John A. Johnson Achievement Plus Elementary School 34
C. Moore Square Museums Magnet Middle School 36
D. Littleton High School 38
E. St. Helena Elementary School 40
F. Neptune Community School 42
G. Inderkum High School 44
H. Westerly Creek Elementary School 46
I. Noble High School 48
IX. References 50
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^—^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^— Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Council of Educational Facility Planners International
(CEFPI) cooperatively developed this publication. It explains why and how communities should employ smart
growth planning principles to build schools that better serve and support students, staff, parents, and the entire
community. It presents examples of supportive state and local policies, as well as case studies from around the
country that show how community-centered schools and the planning process used to design and build these
schools have improved education and fostered more livable places. EPA and CEFPI recognized a need for such
an integrated planning process in the urban planning and environmental fields and among educators and school
board members.
Over the next few decades, thousands of school facilities around the country will be built and renovated. Where
and how schools are built or rebuilt will profoundly affect the communities they serve. In making the decisions
these projects demand, school boards, educational facility planners, and communities will have to meet many
goals—educational, environmental, economic, social, and fiscal.
Although challenging, the boom in school construction offers an unprecedented opportunity to improve the quality
of schools and communities together, by applying the principles of smart growth to educational facility planning.
Smart growth development conserves resources and land; offers choices in housing, transportation, shopping,
recreation, and jobs; encourages community collaboration; and fosters distinctive, attractive neighborhoods. Smart
growth proponents share many principles with educators who support community-centered schools. Both groups
believe that schools should provide quality educational programs and services. Both see community-centered
schools as resources and enhancements for the entire community, not just for students. Both believe schools
should be located in existing neighborhoods, within
walking distance of residents and services, rather
than in outlying areas accessible only by car or bus.
Many communities are realizing that the random,
dispersed growth patterns they have experienced
in recent decades have eroded their quality of life.
Traffic congestion is increasing; municipalities
spend funds on building new infrastructure in far-
flung development, abandoning their investments
in existing neighborhoods; open space seems to
be vanishing. In reevaluating growth patterns,
communities are also assessing how and where
they spend their education dollars. Investments in
schools at once respond to and influence growth.
When school districts collaborate with city leaders
to incorporate smart growth principles in the master
facility planning process, the community benefits
socially and economically. Each community
should use its education dollars to fulfill academic
considerations and to express the values and
vision of the community. This publication helps
communities invest in schools that will give their
children the best possible education, use taxpayer
dollars wisely, and improve the quality of life for
all citizens.
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
THE CHALLENGE TO GROW; THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXCEL
School districts across the nation are currently faced with providing more than 53 million students in grades K-12
with healthy, secure, high-performing educational facilities. This challenge will only grow—the U.S. Department
of Education estimates that by 2030, the student population will reach 60 million (National Center for Education
Statistics, Baby Boom, 2000. Hereafter the National Center is abbreviated NCES). Renovations and additions
to existing schools and the construction of new facilities will be needed to address this projected growth. At
the same time, many small schools in cities, towns, and rural communities are closing as large schools are built
on the edges of communities. In many cases, economic
considerations have encouraged consolidation. Some state
and local policies are biased toward larger schools. The
rationale for many of these policies remains unclear. For
example, twenty-seven states have some form of minimum
acreage standards, which often demand sites so large they
can be found only in less developed parts of communities
or outside of town.
The National Education Association (2000) estimates
that billions of dollars are needed to bring schools
into "good" physical condition. The ten states with
the greatest need are these:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
California
New York
Ohio
New Jersey
Texas
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Michigan
10. Utah
$32.9 billion
$32.9 billion
$25.1 billion
$22.0 billion
$13.6 billion
$11.3 billion
$10.4 billion
$ 9.9 billion
$ 9.9 billion
$ 9.0 billion
The National Center for Education Statistics notes that
the number of schools in the United States has decreased
from approximately 247,000 in 1930 to 93,000 today
(U.S. Statistics 2002), while the student population over
the same period has risen from 28 million to 53.5 million
(NCES, Digest, 2002). Furthermore, NCES reports that the
average public school facility is more than forty years old
and needs critical repair and modernization (Lewis 2000). To accommodate the growing demand, school districts
are constructing new facilities and considering fresh approaches, such as adaptive reuse of buildings, to house
students safely and to provide a high-quality education.
Over the past several decades, investments in educational facilities have often followed the model of most real
estate development—building new schools at the edges of communities on large, undeveloped parcels of land.
This approach, whether initiated by a town or by a school district, abandons the community core and existing
facilities and increases public expenditures, traffic congestion, pollution and loss of open space.
To respond to changing demographics, school districts need efficient and innovative ways to plan, build, adapt,
and renovate facilities. Faced with the costly consequences of independent master planning, many communities
are seeking better ways to grow by applying the principles of smart growth. Smart growth improves the quality
of life in communities by providing more transportation choices, preserving green space, making communities
walkable, increasing fiscal capacity, and improving existing
infrastructure.
The challenge of accommodating the growing student
population presents an opportunity to invest in smart
community development and to unite planning efforts between
city planners and school district personnel. Any expenditure
of public money should provide the greatest benefit for
the community as a whole; educational investments are no
exception. Integrating school district planning with smart
growth planning can produce neighborhood-centered schools
that offer high-quality educational programs while benefiting
their communities in many ways.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES
The EPA defines smart growth as "development that serves the economy, the community, and the environment.
It provides a framework for communities to make informed decisions about how and where they grow" (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2001. Hereafter in references abbreviated EPA). The principles of smart growth
promote economic development and job creation along with strong neighborhoods and healthy communities.
Based on specific community needs and characteristics, smart growth may look different in each community that
employs its principles.
Incorporating smart growth principles into the facility master planning process, school districts can provide high-
quality learning environments that also enrich their communities. The ten principles below were developed from
the experience of communities around the nation that have benefited from smart growth:
• Mix land uses
By mixing housing, shops, offices, schools, and other land uses in the same neighborhood, communities can
encourage alternatives to driving, such as walking or biking. Streets, public spaces, and pedestrian-oriented
shopping areas become places where people meet. With more people walking through the streets at different times
of the day, communities are livelier and more secure.
• Take advantage of compact building design
During the last two decades of the twentieth century, Americans developed land three times faster than the nation's
population grew (EPA 2001). Communities can be designed to preserve open space and use land and resources
more efficiently. Compact building design saves localities money and supports more transportation choices by
putting destinations close enough for people to walk or by
creating a concentration of users for public transit. Services
such as water, sewer, electricity, phone service, and other
utilities are cheaper to provide and maintain per unit in more
compact neighborhoods than in dispersed communities.
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
Providing quality housing for people of all income levels
is an integral component in any smart growth strategy. No
single type of housing can serve the varied needs of today's
diverse households. Smart growth encourages communities
to increase housing choices by modifying their land-use
patterns on newly developed land and by developing the
housing supply in existing neighborhoods and on land
served by existing infrastructure. Housing is also a key
factor in commuting patterns, energy and other resource
consumption, and access to transportation, community
services, and education.
• Invest in walkable neighborhoods
Walkable communities expand transportation options
and create places that serve a range of users: pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers. Walkable places also
encourage everyday physical activity, which is vital to good
personal health. To encourage walking, communities should
mix land uses, build compactly, and ensure safe and inviting
pedestrian corridors.
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
Development should represent the values and the unique history, culture, economy, and geography of a
community. Smart growth development creates a sense of defined neighborhoods, towns, and regions. It
encourages construction and preservation of buildings that prove to be assets to a community over time because
of the services they provide and the unique contribution they make to the look and feel of a city.
• Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
Farmland, pastures, forests, and other undeveloped land are key to the local and national economy and to a healthy
environment. Open space preservation bolsters local economies, preserves critical environmental areas, improves
air quality, improves the quality of life, and guides new growth into existing communities.
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
Development that invests in existing neighborhoods takes advantage of the infrastructure and resources already
in place, thereby maintaining the value of public and private investment. By encouraging "infill" development,
communities benefit from a stronger tax base, greater proximity of a range of jobs and services, and reduced
development pressure in fringe areas.
• Provide a variety of transportation choices
A balanced transportation system that incorporates many means of travel—private cars, buses, rail, walking,
biking—and is supported by land-use patterns increases choices for moving around a city. Providing more
transportation options can help reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. For citizens who cannot or choose not
to drive, it increases mobility.
• Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective
Government must create a more attractive investment climate to promote smart growth. The private sector must
support a community vision for smart growth development for it to occur and be successful. To make that possible,
state and local governments must be able to make decisions quickly, cost-effectively and predictably.
• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration
Growth can create great places to live, work, and play—if it responds to a community's sense of how and where
it wants to grow. Smart growth involves residents, businesses, and all other stakeholders early and often to define
and implement the community's vision and goals.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
The Connection:
Smart Growth Principles and Community-Centered Schools
Integrating smart growth principles into the educational facility planning process will assist school districts and
communities in delivering a first-rate education and improving the neighborhood. The results of the collaborative
planning process are community-centered schools that offer many benefits similar to those of smart growth: better
living and working environments, an enhanced sense of pride in the community, and a human scale for facilities
and programs that serve the citizens of large cities. Just as smart growth development looks different in each
community, each neighborhood school is unique because it serves specific academic programs and communities.
Community-centered schools may be new facilities, renovated or retrofitted historic buildings, or buildings adapted
to accommodate educational functions. Public and private
organizations may share a community-centered school
facility, and it may be accessible throughout the year to
residents for various purposes during the day, evenings
and weekends. Community-centered schools that are a
result of a collaborative smart growth planning process
share at least one common physical characteristic: all are
located in the towns and neighborhoods they serve.
Educational Benefits
Through long-term and careful planning with the
community thatincludes students, teachers, administrators,
and members of all community constituencies, high-
quality, community-centered educational environments
• Promote a sense of safety and security
• Build connections between members of the school
and the community
• Instill a sense of pride
• Engage students in learning
• Encourage strong parental involvement
• Foster environmental stewardship.
Each community-centered school may look different and
function differently, but they all hold the following six
traits.
Promote a sense of safety and security: Community-
centered schools can reduce student isolation and
alienation that often breed discipline problems and
violence. Students in small schools have a stronger
sense of identity and belonging, of being connected to
a community (Cotton 2001). This sense of belonging
manifests itself in increased participation in extracurricular
activities, strengthening students' connections to each
other and to the school. Simply stated, in a small group,
each individual feels that he or she matters more than in a
large group. Thus the community-centered school fosters
self-worth, improves behavior, and increases students'
ability to learn (Cuningham 2002).
A Note about "Small Schools"
Community-centered schools are often smaller than
schools built outside of town. In part, their size may
be constrained by the limits of space available in an
existing community. More important, regardless of the
number of students enrolled, all community-centered
schools create a "small school" atmosphere.
Research demonstrates that smaller learning
environments, like community-centered schools,
provide high-quality education. Just as smart growth
differs from community to community, the definition
of "small" varies from school district to school district.
The school's population and enrollment must be
defined so that the facility serves the students and
the neighborhood in which it is located. As CEFPI
notes, "The reality is that the size of the school is not
as critical as the delivery systems used in meeting
the educational needs of students In all cases,
planners must decide what kind of program will meet
the needs of all students. . . . One size does not fit
all. The debate over school size should center on
addressing the identified educational program in the
most effective manner" (CEFPI 2004: 2:6).
"Smallerschools create intimate learning environments
where each learner is well known and can be guided
and coached individually by teachers" (Cuningham
Group 2002). Many studies show that students in
small schools improve their grades, test scores,
attendance, and graduation rates (Blank 2003,19-20).
Moreover, small schools reduce the effect of poverty
on achievement. In fact, according to a recent U.S.
Department of Education study, "a higher percentage
of students, across all socioeconomic levels, are
successful when they are part of smaller, more intimate
learning communities" (Irmsher 1997).
Small schools encourage teachers to become more
involved in their students' success. Staff members
find themselves playing multiple roles, more fully
participating in decision-making, and working together
to integrate the curriculum across disciplines and grade
levels. Their increased participation gives them greater
satisfaction in their work, reduces staff turnover, and
offers a greater chance for a strong connection
between the learner and teacher (Blank 2003,19).
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Build connections between members of the school and the community: Community-centered schools foster
increased involvement in the school by all members of the community, including parents. This has been proven to
play a role in students' success (Blank 2002, 27-28. Increased community participation may be due in part to the
ease with which parents and other visitors can get to the
school and to the welcoming feeling of a neighborhood
school, in contrast to large, often intimidating facilities
located outside of the center of the community.
"A true community partnership recognizes schools
as an integral part of the town, city, and state, and
it involves all members of the community who have
a vested interest in the schools. Whether financial,
political, social, or educational, these interests should
be recognized and addressed" (CEFPI 2004, 3-2).
Such a school acts both as an educational facility and as a
community center. Members of the business community
might serve as guest lecturers; senior citizens might come in for meals, recreational opportunities or to assist
with instruction; neighbors might use the facility for evening or weekend classes or recreation. Schools may also
organize volunteer programs for students to help adults who live in the community.
Instill a sense of pride: Community-centered schools can reinforce a "sense of place" or distinctive neighborhood
character, because they blend into the fabric of the community. In contrast, schools isolated on vast tracts of land,
separated from communities they serve often have no architectural context on which to draw. By reflecting a
community's unique identity and culture in its design and activities, neighborhood schools can instill pride and
ownership, key ingredients to successful learning environments. The new high school in Foresthill, California, for
example, reflects its site's heritage as a former timber mill property by blending traditional timber-mill elements
with the high-tech look that students wanted and by working with a nearby forestry education center.
The convenience of getting to and from a community-centered school often increases student participation in
school-related activities. At a neighborhood school, students are more likely to walk or bike between home and
school, instead of having to rely on a school bus or private ride that can limit their freedom to participate in
after-school activities. Students also develop independence and responsibility in getting to and from school and
community activities on their own, instead of being chauffcured by their parents and guardians.
Engage students in learning: Strong connections between local businesses and a community-based school allow
students to apply what they are learning at nearby businesses, offices, cultural venues, and libraries. For instance,
Moore Square Museums Magnet Middle School in Raleigh, North Carolina, collaborates with nearby museums
and arts facilities to give students the opportunity for hands-on learning (for more details, see the case studies).
Likewise, students in California's North Hollywood High School Animal Studies/Biological Sciences Zoo
Magnet Center go behind the scenes at the Los Angeles Zoo to work with zoo research staff on unique, exciting
science projects.
Encourage strong parental involvement: As students participate more in the school, so do their parents. Recent
research has shown that when parents are involved in school activities, their children do better and stay in school
longer. In fact, a critical mass of parental involvement improves the performance of all students, not just those
with more involved parents (Blank 2003). Clearly, the connection between parents, students, and the school
is an important influence on student achievement. Community-centered schools support and encourage these
connections.
Foster environmental stewardship: Community-centered
schools are themselves excellent teaching tools to
instruct children on preserving and protecting the natural
environment and to instill in them a sense of environmental
stewardship. Teachers, for instance, can use the school's compact site to talk about land use and development; a
renovated or reused building provides lessons on resource conservation. Many schools that install energy-efficient
heating, cooling, or lighting systems leave the mechanical workings exposed to be used as educational and
"Community partnerships often produce more systemic
recommendations, incorporating a broad range of the
community's physical, cultural, social, economic,
organizational and educational assets" (CEFPI 2004,
3-3).
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
instructional tools. For example, the Neptune Community
School, in Neptune, New Jersey is working with the Liberty
Science Center to develop a rooftop green space that will
serve as a living classroom. The school also will install
transparent floors so that students can see the geothermal
heating and cooling systems and other energy-conserving
components and learn, from the example of their building,
how energy consumption affects the environment.
"Revitalizing a neighborhood school may stimulate
local businesses and residents to make improvements
to their properties. This new investment can raise
property tax assessments, broaden the tax base, and
ultimately enhance tax revenues."
Yale Stenzler, Ed.D.
Former Executive Director
School Construction Program, Maryland
Community Benefits
Quality of education is always the primary consideration when investing in school facilities. Schools that are
centered in the community enhance their educational programs and improve the overall quality of education.
However, they also benefit the community as a whole by
• Promoting economic development
• Strengthening neighborhoods
• Improving human and environmental health.
Economic Development
Major employers with considerable purchasing power, schools significantly influence a community's economic
well-being. The economic consequences of a school's location are often underestimated or ignored, yet they
affect not only students and teachers but the local business community as well. A study by Charles H. Sederberg
of the University of Minnesota found that in six rural Minnesota counties, the school district payroll made up, on
average, 4 to 9 percent of the county's total payroll. District expenditures comprised 1 to 3 percent of a county's
total retail sales, and the take-home pay of school employees accounted for five to ten percent of total retail sales
(Lawrence 2002, 15). Other studies show that property values can fall when nearby schools are closed (Lyson
2002; McClelland 2004). When the high school in Lund, Nevada, closed, the town's retail sales dropped 8
percent (Lawrence 2002, 16).
Meanwhile, new construction in outlying regions may create unexpected negative consequences. A school built
outside of town may limit places for parents or teachers to shop as they travel to and from the school and provide
few opportunities for students to work part-time
near the school. In rural areas, building schools near
farms can render agricultural land unusable, because
of state laws regulating pesticide use near schools
and buffer zones between schools and farms (Fried
2004).
Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting
This U.S. EPA study was the first to empirically examine the
relationship between school location, the infrastructure and
environment around schools, transportation choices for trips to
school, and impacts of those choices on air pollution. It found that:
• School proximity matters. Students with shorter walk and
bike times to and from school are more likely to walk or bike.
• The built environment influences travel choices. Students
traveling through neighborhoods with sidewalks and bike
lanes are more likely to bike or walk.
• School location has an impact on air emissions.
Centrally located schools that can easily be reached by
walking and biking reduce air pollution. (EPA 2003)
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/school travel.pdf
Strong Neighborhoods
Community-centered schools help create strong
neighborhoods whose residents know one another.
When the school is an integral part of the community,
it becomes an icon of the community as well as a
gathering place for residents of all ages. Residents
and students are likely to use a community-centered
school for many activities before, during, and
after school hours throughout the calendar year.
Community schools create a venue for neighbors to
build relationships, encouraging them to invest time, money, and effort in building a cohesive neighborhood. In
rural communities and small towns, the community school may be the only civic gathering place, and its loss can
be devastating; a survey of small towns in North Dakota that had lost schools showed that residents participated
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
less in local organizations and
activities following the schools'
closure. Residents also rated their
quality of life significantly lower
than did their counterparts in
communities that did not lose their
schools (Lawrence 2002, 17).
Citizens are more likely to
participate actively in the daily
life of small neighborhood schools
than they are in schools located
far from where they live (Cotton
1996, 17). This participation
gives them greater influence
regarding academic curriculum,
educational standards, budgets,
teacher qualifications, and the daily
operations of the school—factors
that contribute to an economically
and socially vibrant place in which
to live, work, and play.
School boards have long
been an important vehicle for
involving residents in community
governance. But the number of
people serving on school boards
fell from one million in 1930 to
less than 200,000 today as the
number of school districts declined.
At the same time, U.S. population
doubled. This loss of opportunities
to serve on school boards may
be contributing to the general
disengagement of Americans from
civic life (Lawrence 2002, 17).
Healthy Communities
Integrating educational facility
planning with smart growth
planning will create community-
centered schools and provide health
benefits for residents, who can use
school facilities for recreation and exercise. It also helps to improve the environment. Locating schools close to
where people live can reduce the number and length of automobile trips, reducing auto emissions and thus air
pollution. An EPA study of two high schools in Gainesville, Florida, suggested that neighborhood schools could
generate 13 percent more walking or biking trips and 15 percent fewer auto emissions than schools built outside
a community. (EPA 2004)
Walking to School: A Quick Guide
International Walk to School Day
http://www.iwalktoschool.org/
A one-day event that occurs around the world every October. Children,
parents, teachers, and community leaders walk to school together to promote
physical activity and making streets more friendly for walking and bicycling.
Walk to School Programs
http://www.walktoschool-usa.org/
Programs that extend Walk to School Day events into more sustained programs
to encourage safe walking and bicycling to school. They rely on neighborhood,
school, transportation, public works, health, safety, and environmental partners
to accomplish specific goals. They occur at the neighborhood, school, county,
or state level.
SAFE KIDS Walk This Way
http://www.safekids.org
A year-round pedestrian safety program conducted by the National SAFE
KIDS Campaign with support from Federal Express and 3M. Local SAFE KIDS
coalitions launch the programs by participating in International Walk to School
Day. SAFE KIDS coalitions work with parents, educators and community
leaders to teach pedestrian safety to children, enforce speed limits and
other traffic regulations, and improve school environments through research,
engineering, and traffic calming.
Walking School Bus
http://www.walkingschoolbus.org
Asmall group of students who are accompanied by one or more adults on their
walks to and from school.
KidsWalk-to-School
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk/index.htm
A walk-to-school program to guide community members and local and state
health officials on how to implement walking school buses and other walk-to-
school programs.
Safe Routes to School
http://www.saferoutestoschool.org
A sustained walk-to-school program that uses a comprehensive approach to
make school routes safer for children to walk and bicycle. The programs often
use policies and dedicated transportation funding to create permanent change
and normalize walking.
Safe Routes to School Legislation
http://www.walktoschool-usa.org/funding/index.cfm
Legislation that dedicates funding to create safe walking and bicycling routes
to school. The model is California's law that directs significant transportation
funding to local Safe Routes to School programs.
Reprinted from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center of the University
of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center for the Partnership for a
Walkable America.
http://www.walktoschool-usa.ora/downloads/WTSDbooklet.cfm
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Walking or biking to school gives students an opportunity for everyday physical activity. Fifteen percent of
children aged 6 to 19 are overweight, triple the rate of just twenty years ago, according to the 1999-2000 National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Another 15 percent are on the verge of becoming overweight. The
soaring obesity rate has brought with it startling rises in the incidence of childhood diabetes (McConnaughey
2003), asthma, and even high blood pressure (Stein 2004). Although many factors are to blame for the obesity
epidemic, one element is a lack of physical activity. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey for 2001
found that on at least five days in the previous week nearly a third of the students surveyed had not engaged in
even moderate physical activity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that only a
quarter of American children regularly walked or biked to school in 1999 (U.S. CDC 2002). Physical activity
recommendations for children suggest a variety of activities each day—some intense, some less so; some
informal, some structured. Walking or bicycling to and from school is an ideal way to incorporate exercise into a
child's daily routine at no extra cost. However, proximity to a school, though necessary, may not suffice to spur
this activity. That's why many jurisdictions have begun "Safe Routes to School" programs that ensure children
can walk safely to and from school.
Locating schools in neighborhoods, reusing infrastructure, and renovating buildings conserve energy and resources.
Integrating schools into existing neighborhoods, instead of building them on undeveloped land on the fringe of the
community, also preserves the natural environment, including farmland, fields, and wildlife habitat. By reusing
buildings, roads, parking lots, and other infrastructure, communities can avoid building more impervious paved
surfaces, which in turn reduces contaminated water runoff into nearby lakes, rivers, and streams. Rather than
draining the natural and human resources of their communities, neighborhood schools promoted by smart growth
preserve and nourish them (Lawrence 2002, 15).
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN PLANNING
COMMUNITY-CENTERED SCHOOLS
Community-centered schools serve educational needs while strengthening and revitalizing neighborhoods, but
they require careful planning and a strong commitment to a collaborative planning process. Educational leaders
and community stakeholders must consider many factors as they examine the options for renovating or expanding
an existing facility, constructing a replacement school on the existing site or a new location, or converting an
existing building into a school.
,4-
Factors to Consider:
• Educational programs and services
• Student and community demographics
• Site size
• Transportation and parking
• Community partnerships and co-location
• Cost comparisons
o Renovation vs. new construction
o Life-cycle cost
o Adaptive reuse
• Local planning and zoning ordinances
• Economic impact
• Environment, health, and safety
• Flexibility
Educational Programs and Services
Community-centered schools must first meet the core academic requirements mandated by the school district.
Next, community-centered school planning should consider other educational needs and services for students
and nonstudents. These programs typically evolve through study and discussion with educators, students, and
residents, who share their needs and additional community goals that the facility could meet. For example, a
community with a large immigrant population might have an unmet need for English as a second language
programs that are offered to students and their parents; or community health care services may be housed at the
school; or the school may use a public park for outdoor activity space and recreation rather than build its own
playground and athletic fields. School facilities are public property and should be used in ways that serve many
needs within the community.
Student and Community Demographics
Enrollment forecasts and other demographic analyses can help educational facility planners determine how many
people the district will have to accommodate, where a school will be located, and how the populations are likely
to change. The best school planning responds not only to
current needs but also to future needs as the community
grows and changes. Because reliable, realistic data is
essential, this job requires a professional demographer's
experience and expertise.
"Connecting what the community wants for its schools
to the vision of the district should be the driving force
behind the design of the educational plan" (CEFPI
2004, 1:6).
An enrollment forecast examines patterns of families moving in and out of the school district, rates of existing
housing sales and new home construction, and total fertility rates. The school's projected enrollment over five
to ten years is based on historical enrollment data, birth rates, and demographic trends derived from professional
analysis. In conjunction with enrollment studies, the planners must review overall community population shifts
that already have taken place and that are predicted.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Site Size and Location
One size does not fit all. Educational and community leaders should determine the best site size required to
accommodate the expected number of students, the educational programs, and the needs of the community.
An assessment of educational programs, extracurricular
activities, parking ordinances, and other factors may
help identify the site requirements for the school. A
community-centered school in an existing neighborhood
that offers students the opportunity to walk, bike, or take
public transportation may be located on a smaller site
than a new facility on the fringe of town with more land
but little connection to the community.
"We still build in new areas buildings that are off on
their own; that are separated. It's not just schools,
but all kinds of land use. There are people who
are trying to change that, particularly in the smart-
growth movement. Schools need to become a part
of that overall trend, become part of the smart-growth
movement by integrating things rather than separating
them" (Blurock2004).
A small site can be a catalyst for innovative, enriching partnerships with nearby arts, cultural, recreational and
educational facilities. Joint-use projects can reduce land requirements through cooperative arrangements for
parking and the use of parks and recreational fields. This consolidation reduces land acquisition costs and expenses
for site development or redevelopment, as well as for maintenance of grounds and open space. A centrally located
school that is easy for students and citizens to walk or bike to can reduce land needed for parking, bus drop-off
and circular traffic. Schools can even use the money they save by using a smaller site to build a multistory school,
reducing yet again the needed land and associated costs. These arrangements can save money and create unique,
stimulating educational opportunities.
Acreage Standards
Most states with oversight responsibilities
accept waivers and alternatives to published
requirements, guidelines or standards, and often
differentiate between existing facilities and new
construction. For specific information regarding
school site size, contact the State Department
of Education or school building authority in your
state. The following states have no site size
requirements:
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Many states or local school districts have suggested minimum
school site size guidelines or mandatory standards. Urban,
rural, and suburban communities are questioning guidelines
and standards for many reasons: some simply do not have the
acreage available to accommodate prescribed standards; some
communities appreciate the rich environment of an in-town
setting and neighborhood schools; some districts cannot afford
to purchase and maintain large parcels of land on the fringe of
town. Some states allow an exception to or a waiver from site
size guidelines or standards. It is often easier to obtain a waiver
for an existing school being considered for renovations or an
addition than to get one for new construction.
Transportation and Parking
When selecting a site for building a new school or an existing
property for renovation, facility planners should consider the
long-term costs of student transportation. A site outside of
town might appear attractive because it costs less per acre, but
more students will have to use school buses than would be the
case for a school located close to their homes. For example,
the John A. Johnson Elementary School in St. Paul, Minnesota,
serves more than three hundred students, but just eight of them
ride the bus (see case studies for more details). Any cost-
benefit analysis should include projected travel distances for
the majority of students and related transportation costs to the
school district and taxpayers over fifty years. Schools that
offer transportation choices in addition to school buses are
accessible to more community members.
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
The school's configuration and cost must also take into account parking for teachers, students, and visitors.
Zoning laws may require on-site parking, which may prove excessive for in-town, neighborhood schools.
However, community-centered schools sometimes can negotiate more favorable parking requirements based on
their transportation options and opportunities to share parking areas.
Community Partnerships and Co-location
A school should be a focal point for the neighborhood. To truly serve the entire community, facility planners must
involve residents who would not usually receive services from the public school system. The entire community
should be engaged in every step of planning the facility,
from determining programs to choosing a site. Architect
Steven Bingler, who specializes in educational facilities
and community engagement, notes, "At the end of the
day. . .the community has to agree to [the site selection].
That's the rule. And if the community doesn't agree
with it then they let themselves, and their ideas, and
their opinions be known in various ways. Almost every
way, except community engagement, takes longer at
the end of the day" (Bingler, "(Re)designing learning
environments," 2003).
Community Engagement
"In Walnut Hills in Cincinnati, for example, at the
beginning of the process the [school] district had
already developed a master plan that said here's
where your new school is going to be located. [During]
this community-engagement process, the community
built quite a large inventory of its assets. . .[and] its
needs. And the community decided about two-thirds
of the way through the process that there were other
sites in the neighborhood that might be better for a
location for the school. The site that the community
came up with was adjacent to a park, an open space,
it has a YMCA on the site, it has a library right across
the street from the site—these are assets that already
existed. Lots of taxpayers' money has been spent on
building these assets. The community said let's build
a school where we can hook into these things. The
YMCA has a swimming pool. The school wouldn't have
had a swimming pool on its own. But if it's adjacent to
a swimming pool then they can work their arrangement
with the YMCA to share facilities. That's the kind of
thing we're talking about. Common sense, by the way,
is what we're talking about" (Bingler 2003).
To meet the community's needs, the school might share
space with other public services, such as health clinics,
libraries, senior citizen centers, early childhood centers,
day care, and employment services. Private-sector and
nonprofit organizations may also share the facility,
offering various public-service classes; the facility
might also house programs from a community college
or university, association offices, a bank, a catering
business, a physical fitness center, or a medical office.
This space-sharing strategy is known as co-location. In an outstanding example of co-location, Brooklyn Park
Middle School and Community Center in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, completed a renovation project that
incorporated a senior center, police-sponsored programs, and a world-class performing arts facility. The Neptune
Community School in Neptune, New Jersey, will include a health and dental clinic, a community center, and art
and music studios.
Co-location saves the community money by using a single structure to achieve several goals. Partnerships between
the school and local businesses, organizations, or government agencies allow the parties to pool their resources,
sharing in the costs of site acquisition, construction, operations, and maintenance. The result is a facility that
accommodates more uses at a lower cost than any single party could have produced alone.
Some states may provide additional financial incentives or funding to support these cooperative arrangements.
Although zoning or other restrictions may apply, the only real limitation is the community's imagination and
desire to find compatible functions that can share space and expenses. St. Paul's John A. Johnson Elementary
School, for example, shares recreational facilities with the local YMCA. This arrangement has saved the county
money, increased YMCA attendance, and provided many other benefits to the community. Additionally, the co-
location arrangement provides recreational and physical education opportunities for the students and staff. So,
co-locating the YMCA in the John A. Johnson Elementary School allows it to serve the school's educational
program and services.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
When education bonds are on the ballot, partnerships that integrate community resources and services with a
school's educational program can strengthen support from citizens, even those with no school-age children.
After two bond issues failed to win voters' approval, Gaylord High School in Gaylord, Michigan, engaged
the community in designing its new facility to include an auditorium, athletic facilities, and classrooms that
community members could use after school hours. In response, the citizens passed a bond of nearly $20 million
to finance construction.
Cost Comparisons
To determine whether to build a new school or renovate an existing one, planners should make a detailed
comparison of costs. Such an analysis should include these factors:
• A feasibility study assessing projected enrollment and the number of students to be accommodated in the
facility
• An educational specification that describes the programs and services to be provided (including any
community requirements)
• Realistic cost estimates for renovations and new construction
• Real estate acquisition costs
• Estimates for operating and maintaining each alternative over thirty or forty years
• Transportation costs (also over time)
• Required infrastructure improvements (roads, water, sewer, gas and electrical service)
• Emergency services response time and cost
• Outstanding bond debt on the existing facility
• Potential resale value of the existing school building
• Potential uses of the existing school building in the future and associated costs
• Potential sources of funding from outside the district (state, federal, other)
• Estimated time line for each option
• Provisions for the temporary housing of students if the renovation option is pursued
• Economic impact on the community.
Renovation versus New Construction. A state requirement, a school district policy, or a recommendation from a
design consultant often establishes a limit on what a district may spend to renovate rather than build new, usually
a specific percentage of the cost of new construction. The National Trust for Historic Preservation urges states
to eliminate these funding policies, because they penalize communities for maintaining and modernizing old
schools, even when doing so costs less than building new. Basing a decision about the future of a school facility
on a prescriptive formula often precludes identifying and considering other costs associated with building in a
new location, such as site acquisition, long-term transportation, operation and maintenance, and infrastructure
improvements. In addition, renovating an existing building can reuse existing facility elements, saving money
compared to building new. Communities facing mandated formulas that favor new construction over renovation
may be able to obtain waivers, even in places without a formal waiver process.
Regardless of funding restrictions, an existing school building may be important enough to a community to
support renovation or reuse. Such value may be difficult to quantify, but community and school leaders should
consider these questions:
• Is the school a treasured part of the town?
• Is the building a landmark that defines the neighborhood?
• Is the school located ideally to serve the residents of the community, including senior citizens?
• Do nonstudents use the school for a variety of activities?
• What fate awaits the school and community if it is no longer used for educational purposes?
Life-Cycle Costs. Architects, engineers or other consultants performing the feasibility study should include life-
cycle costs to fully express the true costs of each option. Life-cycle costs examine not only the initial costs of a
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
particular building system or component but those associated with the entire facility over a long period. Often,
an item that costs relatively little to obtain or install can have such high long-term operating or maintenance
costs that it is a poor value. The reverse may also be
true. For example, many environmentally friendly
building materials are more expensive to buy than
their conventional counterparts, but they cost less to
maintain and save resources over years of use.
A life-cycle cost approach considers long-term
transportation implications in selecting the school site.
Because transportation operations may be funded from
a different pool of money than are construction costs,
they may receive inadequate consideration during site
selection and at other key points in the process. The
long-term value of transportation and energy savings
can offset some larger capital outlays that may be
required during site acquisition or construction. Life-
cycle cost studies can help determine the best solution Entrance to Marc T. Atkinson Middle School. Former Man/vale Mall,
for the school system and the community over time. Phoenix, Arizona.
Adaptive Reuse. Typically spacious and centrally located, vacant or abandoned structures such as former office
buildings, department stores, and commercial business facilities offer great opportunities for reuse as community-
centered schools. Acquiring and renovating such a structure may be more economical than building a new facility
outside of town. In considering a renovation, keep in mind two basic principles: the property must be safe, and
the structure must accommodate the educational program and create a high-quality learning environment. Thus
planners must study buildings for potential conversion
very carefully. The Detroit and Miami public school
districts offer cautionary examples: both tried to
convert hospital buildings into schools, only to find
that the structures couldn't be adapted to the schools'
needs (Spector 2003, 2).
The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
(NCEF) cites several examples of schools that have
reused nonacademic buildings, such as furniture
stores, offices, and manufacturing plants. A mall in
a low-income section of Phoenix, Arizona, became
an academic complex that includes an elementary
school, a middle school, and temporary space for
students from schools that are being renovated. The
Former Maryvale Mall, Phoenix, Arizona currently serves as an en- mall's movie theater is now a performing arts center,
tire community resource. its skating rink was turned into a physical fitness facility,
its bowling alley became a school warehouse, and its parking lots were converted into playgrounds and athletic
fields. The creativity of the school planners, a generous mall owner who reduced the price of his building, and a
lack of affordable land available for the new school converged to create a state-of-the-art educational complex for
this impoverished community (Spector 2003, 3).
Local Planning and Zoning Ordinances
In many communities, school districts are exempt from local planning and zoning ordinances. However, to
create the best possible resource for the community and for students, school planners should work with the local
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
government and community leaders to fit the facility into the community's overall planning goals, regardless of
whether they are legally obliged to do so.
Economic Impact. In our discussion above, we have seen how a school's location affects a community
economically. Planners should consider the distinct benefits of a vibrant local school that remains within a
neighborhood, the economic consequences for local
business and for the tax base involved in moving a school
out of a neighborhood, and possible negative effects of
new development on rural landowners.
"One of the great things about adaptive reuse is that
it forces you to address context. It also moves beyond
the building and gets to site issues and buildings
within communities. We actually can start to not break
down and recreate communities, but build on what's
been done before and help that maturation process of
communities by working with what we've got" (Leonard
2004).
Residential Development
The appearance of a school, particularly the exterior of
the building and the grounds, sends a message about the
community's convictions and commitment to education
and its students, teachers, staff, parents, and other citizens. A well-maintained, welcoming building with a cheerful
atmosphere says, "We care, and we are committed to providing high-quality education." That positive image can
reflect on the entire community. Renovating a school in an existing neighborhood demonstrates the community's
commitment and stability, which can stimulate improvements to the housing stock in the area. On the other hand,
a poorly maintained school sends the message that the community doesn't care about its residents. Over time,
this can have a negative effect on housing around the school as residents with children move to communities with
well-maintained schools.
Closing schools, especially in small communities or neighborhoods, can also affect housing values and economic
development. According to the Rural School and Community Trust (n.d.), rural communities with schools had
higher growth rates, housing values, and incomes, more professional workers and entrepreneurs, and a lower
percentage of households receiving public assistance than did rural communities that had lost their schools (Lyson
2002). A study of rural communities in Iowa found that, over twenty years or more, half of the communities
with a high school gained population, while three-quarters of those without a high school lost population (Dreier
and Goudy, 1994). Quite simply, a well-maintained community school benefits a neighborhood in a variety of
ways, whereas closing schools or allowing them to deteriorate can
precipitate neighborhood decline.
Environment, Health, and Safety
Building a new school on a previously undeveloped site alters
the land and the vegetation, substantially changing the natural
environment of the area. Development usually increases the
acreage of impervious surfaces—building roofs, paved walkways,
paved playgrounds, and parking areas. Before development,
runoff from storms is absorbed by the soil. Once a school goes up
on a site, the school district must spend money to appropriately
treat the runoff, which otherwise would carry oil, fertilizer, and
other contaminants into surface waters. Although some site
disturbance does occur during renovation of an existing school or
during construction on a previously developed site, these activities
generally cause less environmental harm than developing a new
site would.
Perhaps one of the most profound environmental outcomes of
placing schools in existing communities is that it helps conserve
undeveloped land and reduces sprawl. The negative environmental
School
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
effects of sprawling development are well documented.7 Community schools represent an opportunity for the
school system to actively improve the environment and promote smart growth. Less raw material is usually used
in renovated facilities than in newly constructed schools, reducing the budget and the impact on the environment.
A renovation can reuse many of the elements of the existing building, such as concrete footings, foundations,
floors, and walls; structural steel walls, floors, and roofs; window and door frames; and main distribution lines
for electricity, water, gas, and sewer lines. And a renovation, like a new school, can use energy-efficient, non-
toxic, and environmentally friendly materials, supplies, and equipment to save energy, reduce operating costs, and
ensure a healthy environment.
Transportation is a major factor in a school's overall environmental impact. Schools that offer more transportation
choices can reduce the amount of land that is paved, cut automobile pollution, and encourage regular physical
activity for children. Walking or biking to school is one of the easiest ways to instill the habit of physical activity
in a child's everyday routine. EPA's transportation and school siting study, discussed earlier, confirms common
sense in suggesting that the further a school is from a child's residence, the less likely it is that the child will walk
or bike to school. Connecting a school to a network of sidewalks, bike paths, and other infrastructure that makes
walking and biking safe and enjoyable can also encourage physical activity. Site size, location, and design all play
a role in determining whether walking or biking will be an option for students.
Flexibility
It is hard to predict how a school building being renovated or built today might someday be used. While planning
a current facility, planners should consider potential future renovations for educational and noneducational uses,
so that regardless of changes in the school's enrollment and programs the building will continue to serve the
community and its substantial investment for as long as possible. Some sites, because of their location, lend
themselves to future alternative uses for housing or commercial development. Former public schools, for example,
have been converted to residential developments or office space for local governments or private businesses. The
historic Kennedy School in Portland, Oregon, an elementary school built in 1915, is now a unique and popular
movie theater, restaurant, and hotel, offering guests the chance to "fall asleep in class."
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
LOCAL POLICIES THAT SUPPORT COMMUNITY-CENTERED SCHOOLS
To encourage renovation and construction of more community-centered schools and to promote better collaboration
between school districts and towns, many local jurisdictions are revising regulations, passing new laws, and
implementing innovative policies. The efforts described below reflect such actions taken by local governments
and may serve as models or ideas for other towns.
Incorporate State Funds to Create Neighborhood Schools
In August 2000, the Wisconsin legislature passed the Neighborhood Schools Initiative (NSI), authorizing
Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) to borrow up to $98.4 million in state funds. The goals of this publicly financed
effort are to reduce school crowding and transportation burdens, to create more neighborhood school choices, and
ultimately to revitalize the MPS System and Milwaukee's neighborhoods. In addition to encouraging district-
wide reform, the program focuses on the city's 28 most crowded elementary schools and six most crowded
middle schools. In September
2001, Milwaukee's Board of
School Directors approved
the creation of an Office of
Neighborhood Schools to
ensure that the neighborhood-
oriented goals of the initiative
are accomplished. To increase
enrollment at neighborhood
schools, the MPS is undertaking
a construction program of
additions, renovations, and new
buildings. To reduce the need
for bus and car transportation,
MPS has redrawn attendance
area boundaries. The initiative
formed Operation Helping
Hands to make walking safer
for students by erecting signs
and establishing patrol groups to
safely guide children to and from school. See the case study of Milwaukee's 37th Street Elementary School for
an example of this policy in practice. (Milwaukee Public Schools 2004; Milwaukee Dept. of City Development
2003)
Integrate School Construction and Renovation Plans into Neighborhood Revitalization Plans
"Building For Success," a partnership between the Toledo Public School System and the Ohio School Facilities
Commission, is a comprehensive 12-year project aimed at revitalizing the city's schools and surrounding
neighborhoods. Construction and renovation of 62 schools is the centerpiece of plans to revitalize the city's
neighborhoods. In 2002, the city approved the master plan for the facilities, and Toledo voters approved a bond
issue for the city's contribution that, combined with state funds, will provide approximately $800 million for
the schools. The program will construct 39 new elementary schools, 12 new middle schools, and five new
high schools, as well as renovate three elementary schools and three high schools. In 2004, the New Schools
New Neighborhoods Coalition (NSNN), a collaboration between public and private-sector stakeholders and
supporters in Toledo, began work on using the Toledo Public Schools' reconstruction program to redevelop
declining neighborhoods. NSNN supports the implementation of existing neighborhood revitalization plans and
the development of new plans that build on the unique needs of each school and neighborhood. (Toledo Public
Schools 2002)
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Create Relationships with Other School Districts, Counties, and Agencies to Curtail Sprawl
In early 2004, Macomb County, Michigan, in the northeast quadrant of metropolitan Detroit, proposed a five-year
plan for improving its schools. The plan recommends that, for the first time, schools work closely with county and
local planners, other jurisdictions, and each other to curtail sprawl. School districts in Michigan are not legally
required to get municipal or county approval for the school construction, so Macomb County's plan could have
major effects on siting new schools in the future. As of July 2004, the plan was awaiting approval by the school
board. A broad advisory committee, including legislators, executives from General Motors and Ford, utility
companies, municipal and county officials, local school superintendents, and parents, drafted the plan. It calls
for more collaboration and sharing of growth data and demographics; improved communication between school
districts, utility providers, municipalities, and state agencies; and the creation of a leadership team to monitor and
respond to growth fluctuations in the county (Wowk 2004).
Incorporate Community-School Principles into School-Building Programs
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is currently engaged in an ambitious school-building program
to overcome the region's intense overcrowding and projected population growth. LAUSD, which serves 26 cities,
needs 162,000 new classroom seats and 160 new public schools over the next ten years. The program, which was
proposed in the late 1990s, will be completed in several phases, using roughly $9 billion from state and local bonds
passed between 1997 and 2004. The first phase, costing $3.8 billion, built many large schools to accommodate
large numbers of students in certain neighborhoods, but in the second and third phases, LAUSD plans to build
smaller schools using community-school principles. Its current goal is to have a guaranteed neighborhood school
seat for each student in the district. By using this approach, LAUSD combines school bonds with government and
philanthropic funds to create mixed-use, neighborhood schools, offering much-needed health and human services
in addition to education. Today, with less land available for construction in Los Angeles County, unique designs,
often by prominent architects, are being created for each campus to address the specific needs of each community.
As of May 2004, 23 projects had been completed, including two new schools in downtown Los Angeles, and
nearly 100 others had broken ground (Los Angeles Unified School District 2004; Los Angeles 2003).
Incorporate Community Services and Affordable Housing into Neighborhood School Projects
The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD), in partnership with numerous public agencies, San Diego State
University, and philanthropic organizations, has built successful new schools and a revitalized town center in City
L,r I^nf&W ^^^^^^^^^^B Heights, once San Diego's most
.>k 'J^^^^^^^^^^^^l blighted community. The City
; ^^^^^^H^l HdghtS Redevel°Pment Pr°Ject
-' , .it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1 revitalized a seven-square-block
area in 1992, at a time when the
neighborhood had no center and
little community infrastructure.
As part of this effort, the
school district built Rosa Parks
Elementary School and Monroe
Clark Middle School, which
opened in 1997. In addition,
Price Charities, SDUSD, the
city's housing commission,
the local redevelopment
agency, and San Diego State
University's National Center
for the 21st Century Schoolhouse
joined forces to plan a new
neighborhood school and
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
urban village in City Heights.
In January 2001, this group
formed the San Diego Model
School Development Agency to
construct an elementary school
with health and social services,
sharing playing fields with the
community. Connected to its
residential setting by sidewalks,
this model school will serve as
the cornerstone of the revitalized
City Heights neighborhood.
Building the new school means
demolishing some low-income
residences, but the project will
add 350 new low-income and
moderate units. The new school
and the housing units, as well
as the community amenities
and stores envisioned by the
development agency, are scheduled for completion in 2006. (San Diego Model Schools Development
n.d.; "San Diego Model School Project" 2002).
Agency,
Collaborate with Neighboring Institutions
Launched in January 1996, Hartford's Learning Corridor project, largely the vision of former Trinity College
President Evan Dobelle, aims to revitalize the rundown Frog Hollow neighborhood on the city's south side. The
project centers on a 16-acre educational campus adjacent to Trinity College and neighborhood hospitals. The
college collaborated with community leaders and government officials on the plan, which represents a $175
million investment from public and private sources. Within the campus, school buildings are arranged around
playing fields like a college quadrangle. SmithEdwards Architects of Hartford, Connecticut, designed the
collection of buildings, including a Montessori-style public elementary school; a public middle school; a science,
mathematics, and technology high school resource center; the Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts; an early
childhood and family resource center; and a boys and girls club. Now complete, the Learning Corridor initiative
demonstrates how collaborative planning can revitalize a neighborhood, boost home ownership, and provide
modern educational facilities (Trinity College n.d.).
Create After-School Programs for Students and Community Members
In 2002, the Chicago Public School (CPS) system, in partnership with the Polk Brothers Foundation, Bank One,
Chicago Community Trust, COMMA, and many other investors, launched the Community Schools Initiative, an
ambitious five-year campaign to create 100 community schools. CPS initiated this program after a study showed
that students in community schools had higher test scores, improved relationships with supportive adults in after-
school settings, switched schools less often, and had an overall greater feeling of safety. Each CPS school has
the choice of becoming a community school, at which point it must work with a local organization to develop the
necessary programs and services using $130,000 of funding provided by the city. After-school programs offered
at each community school vary, but most invite students and adults to participate in art programs, recreational
activities, English as a second language and GED classes, computer training, and health services. The programs
are designed to support the school's academic program and expand the services offered within the community.
In 2002, CPS converted 20 urban schools into community schools (Chicago Public Schools 2003, Office of After
School Programs; Chicago Public Schools 2003, Six More Schools Open).
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Encourage Renovation by Accurately Comparing Costs with New Construction
In 2002, the Columbus Landmarks Foundation (CLF) joined with the Columbus Public Schools to preserve the
architectural integrity of the district's 56 historic schools, as a response to the Ohio School Facilities Commission's
"two-thirds rule." Under this rule, the state withholds funds for school renovations if the cost exceeds two-thirds
of the cost of building a new school. Working with a consortium of architects, engineers, construction managers,
and planners, CLF undertook a study that showed many cases where school renovation would be cheaper than
replacement. The report, completed in 2002, found that ten historic schools could be refurbished to meet state-of-
the-art educational standards for $13 million less than the cost of building ten new schools. The Columbus school
board accepted the report's findings and moved almost all of the examined schools from the replacement list to
the renovation list. The success of the Columbus study encouraged the Ohio Historic Preservation Office to fund
a similar project in Cleveland ("Historic Preservation" 2004; Raymond and Powers 2004; Lentz 2003).
Offer Bonus Funds for School Construction if Smart Growth Goals Are Met
The Orange County Commission in North Carolina plans to award Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
bonus funds for incorporating specific smart growth strategies in the construction of its third high school. The
bonus funds approved by the county commissioners provide the school district with an additional $1.9 million
for the school, pending the implementation of smart growth measures such as compact design, increased bus
use, reduced parking, and sufficient sidewalks and paths to encourage student walking and biking. In June
2004, the school board agreed to design the new
school with bike lanes and racks, parking spots
.*__^^^^ __^^_^^^^ f°r only 22 percent of the expected 800 students,
IlJi^SBB ;uu' other environmentally sensitive features. The
Bt^BJfe school board will receive an additional $300,000
H^H^H if it agrees to a set of transportation initiatives laid
out by the commission, including shuttles, park-
and-ride shelters, and sidewalk improvements. The
school's location was selected before the school
board developed its smart growth goals, so siting
was not part of the smart growth criteria in this case.
However, site selection is a critical component of
neighborhood schools and should be part of local
policies that support community-centered schools
(Scroggs 2004).
Institute a Safe Routes to School Program
In the spring of 2000, Arlington County, Virginia,
adopted a comprehensive policy to protect walking
students called the Safe Routes to School Program.
Approximately $1.75 million from the county's
general fund will finance the program over four
years, while other sources will pay for additional
measures such as crossing guards, signs, pavement
stripes, and other traffic-calming measures. Before
launching the program, local government and school
officials evaluated the existing safety conditions at
all 32 Arlington County schools. Following the site visits, the county installed new school-zone flashing signals at
about ten schools, relocated several parking and drop-off zones, and introduced crossing guards at all four middle
schools. Long-term projects include new sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and curb extensions. The county
is also redesigning its school renovation and expansion projects to incorporate pedestrian safety improvements
("Safe Routes" 2004).
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
STATE POLICIES THAT SUPPORT COMMUNITY-CENTERED SCHOOLS
Policies, rules, and programs at the state level can augment and complement efforts at the local level to create
community schools. State leadership can also spur movement towards community schools in places where it did
not previously exist. Below is a sample of existing state policies that support community-centered schools.
Promote School Area Safety
In 1999, California Governor Gray Davis signed the Safe Routes to School Bill, which reauthorized and made
permanent a two-year demonstration project to improve school area safety by redirecting some of the state's
federal transportation dollars to local governments. In its first year, the program received applications from local
government agencies totaling $130 million, six times the amount of money made available under the bill. Funded
projects include new crosswalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths, bike lanes, sidewalks in neighborhoods where
none had been built, and "traffic calming" efforts in neighborhoods around schools to slow the speed of cars and
encourage walking (California Dept. of Transportation 2004).
Require Information-Sharing and Coordinated Planning between School Districts and Local Planning Agencies
Under Florida's growth-management strategy, a plan to restrict sprawl, local governments and district school
boards must share information regarding school
planning and land development, and they must
collaborate in making decisions over school locations
and land use. Failure to strike an agreement subjects
both the local governments and district school boards
to financial penalties. (Florida Division of Community
Planning 2004; Florida Growth Management Study
Commission 2001).
Use Schools to Promote Smart Growth Development
and Redevelopment
In January 2002, New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey
issued an executive order to establish a new state
organization charged with ensuring "that school
construction initiatives promote smart growth, open
space, and revitalization of communities." The Smart
Growth Policy Council quickly developed the Schools
Renaissance Zone (SRZ) Program based on the concept
that new school facilities can become catalysts for
redevelopment and investment in neighborhoods
surrounding the schools. Such neighborhood
revitalization might include construction or
rehabilitation of apartments, commercial development,
streetscape improvements, and investment in
community recreational facilities, cultural assets, and
open space. (For an example, see the case study of the
Neptune Community School.) "Zone teams" of state officials from various departments and agencies coordinate
financial and community assistance for the program. (New Jersey Schools Construction Corp. 2004)
Coordinate and Integrate School and Land-Use Planning
The state of Maine asks its education officials to consider whether the location they choose for a new school
will promote sprawl. In 2000, the state planning office and state board of education collaborated on voluntary
guidelines for local officials. The collaboration resulted in "The ABC's of School Site Selection," a brochure
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
outlining the steps to take when making decisions about school siting. According to the National Clearinghouse
for Educational Facilities, the brochure outlines the following steps:
• Consider renovation or expansion in a central location
• Follow the community's comprehensive plan
• Site ancillary facilities, such as playing fields, creatively
• Select a site where students can walk or cycle to school
• Use existing services and facilities
• Tap into community resources to plan school expansion
• Consult with site selection experts
This brochure urges school districts to avoid sprawl; consider school renovations or expansions in central
locations; analyze school sites for their proximity to village centers and established neighborhoods; and select
sites served by adequate roads, utilities, and other essential services."
TO ORDER: Maine Department of Education, 23 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333. Tel: 207-624-6600
(Maine State Planning Office, n.d.)
Direct State Funds to Schools in Existing Communities
The Maryland Public School Construction program directs capital improvements to schools located in "priority
funding areas"—areas where new development is sanctioned by the state. From 1997 to 2001, the state allocated
more than $1 billion to support 1,700 public school construction projects; 95 percent of the projects supported capital
improvements for existing schools; 83 percent of the funds were for renovations or other capital improvements to
existing schools. Maryland uses the following criteria to evaluate the merits of school construction:
• Projects should not encourage sprawl development.
• Projects should not be located in agricultural preservation areas ... unless other options are not viable and the
project's development will have no negative effect on future growth and development in the area.
• Projects should encourage revitalization of existing facilities, neighborhoods, and communities.
• Projects should be located in developed areas or in a locally designated growth area.
• Projects should be served by existing or planned water, sewer, and other public infrastructure." (Maryland
Public School Construction program, n.d.)
"Creating more neighborhood schools is one of the
most important avenues for advancing quality of life
in South Carolina. It makes sense from a learning
standpoint, an economic standpoint and it makes
sense if you want to have schools that are part of a
community's fabric as opposed to part of its sprawl."
—South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford
July 16,2003
Set Aside Funds for Aging Schools
Established in 1997, the Aging School Program in
Maryland provides funds to upgrade aging school
buildings throughout the state. School districts may use
the funds for capital improvements, repairs, and deferred
maintenance work at rundown buildings and sites serving
students. The state funds provided under this program
require no matching local funds. The program selects
projects that would protect the school building from deterioration, make students and staff safer, and improve
delivery of educational programs (Maryland Public School Construction program, n.d.).
Reduce or Eliminate Acreage Standards for Schools
Currently, 27 states have minimum acreage standards, with a wide range of specified sizes. However, given the
drawbacks to such an approach discussed elsewhere in this document, many states are rethinking this approach.
In 2003, for example, South Carolina eliminated its minimum acreage requirements (South Carolina 2003). In
the early 1970s, the state of Maryland made a decision not to establish any site size guidelines or standards.
Lawmakers felt that in doing so there might have to be dual standards; one for suburban areas where lots of land
is available and another standard for urban areas and rural towns and communities where existing schools may be
on small sites and large parcels of land are not readily available.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Maine and Pennsylvania have mandated maximum site sizes—if a school district builds on a site exceeding the
maximum, the state will not fund the purchase of the excess land; the school district will have to pay for it. For a
listing of state policies governing school site size, see http://www.cefpi.org/pdf/state_guidelines.pdf.
Change Grant Criteria to Encourage Renovation Over New Construction
In Massachusetts, the School Building Assistance Program provides "incentive percentage points" for school
renovation or reuse proposals. Such points enhance prospects for state aid to school renovation projects and
encourage new school construction only when renovation is not feasible (Wulfsen, n.d.)
Protect Historic Schools
Pennsylvania policy states that "school districts should take all reasonable efforts to preserve and protect school
buildings that are on or eligible for local or national historic registers. If, for safety, educational, economic, or
other reasons, it is not feasible to renovate an existing school building, school districts are encouraged to develop
an adaptive reuse plan for the building that incorporates an historic easement or covenant to avoid the building's
abandonment or demolition"(Pennsylvania Department of Education 2004). Historic schools taken out of service
may be conveyed by school districts to nonprofit organizations and used for historic purposes for no remuneration
(National Trust 2000).
Provide Dedicated Funding for Joint-Use School Projects
California has passed two state school bond measures that each dedicate $50 million to joint-use planning and
construction. This funding supports the development of schools as integrated parts of their communities, around
child care centers, health clinics, and libraries shared by the schools and the residents who live near the schools.
In its 2003-04 session, the state legislature is considering a bill that would expand the list of school construction
projects currently eligible for joint-use funding to include parks, recreational centers, cultural arts centers,
technology centers, health clinics, and athletic fields (New Schools, Better Neighborhoods 2003).
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
CASE STUDIES
All across the country, cities and towns are building schools that play a central role in their communities. Beyond providing
educational assets for their communities, the schools also preserve or revitalize neighborhoods, conserve land, use taxpayer
dollars efficiently, foster economic development, and enhance the quality of life for citizens.
These nine case studies highlight a variety of municipalities—urban, suburban, and rural—that have successfully used smart
growth principles and created community schools. Just as these places look different, so, too, do their schools. They include
a mix of elementary, middle, and high schools, new construction, and renovations and expansions of older structures. The
imaginative and innovative approaches in these examples offer useful lessons to educators and community leaders around
the country.
37th Street Elementary School John A Johnson Achievement
Plus Elementary School
Moore Square Museums
Middle School
Littleton High School
St. Helena Elementary School Neptune Community School
Inderkum High School
Westerly Creek Elementary
and Odyssey Charter School
Noble High School
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
THE 37™ STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
A 1903 elementary school on the west side of Milwaukee is the linchpin of a comprehensive plan to re-establish
neighborhood schools in the city. This inspiring project springs from the Neighborhood Schools Initiative (NSI),
approved by the Wisconsin legislature in October 1999. The law authorized the Milwaukee school district to
borrow up to $170 million of public
funds to construct new schools or
renovate existing ones to increase the
number of students attending school in
their neighborhoods.
Under this initiative, a collaborative and
interactive planning process, in which the
school district invited participation from
community residents from every part
of the city, developed a plan to revamp
Milwaukee's overcrowded schools.
This process included 310 community
outreach meetings, door-to-door surveys
of 940 households, telephone surveys of
1,473 parents, 13 focus groups, and 1,617
parent information surveys. During the
outreach effort, parents told MPS the
factors that would encourage them to
send their children to their neighborhood school: expanded before- and after-school child care and schooling,
increased safety, more school seats for kindergarten through eighth grade, and continued choice of schools. These
recommendations form the guiding principles for the Neighborhood Schools Plan.
The plan focused on improving the 28 most crowded elementary schools and the six most crowded middle
schools. When fully implemented, the plan will have created more than 11,000 new seats and 750,000 square feet
of additional space through construction of six new schools, additions to 19 existing schools, and renovations of
15 existing schools. In addition, it will
convert a total of 32 additional schools
to K-8. Milwaukee Redevelopment
fcl Authority bonds will fund the plan.
One of the first schools to be replaced
under this plan is the historic 37th Street
Elementary School, located in the
city's Washington Park neighborhood.
The school's attendance area is
predominantly African-American (63
percent) and Asian (Hmong; 32 percent).
Currently, half of the population is
under the age of 18, and 63 percent of
neighborhood households are headed by
single females. Most of the housing units
are rental, with only 25 percent being
owner-occupied. The average family
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
size is 3.94 persons, compared to the city
average of 2.53. The existing school,
built in 1903, accommodates only 300
_ .. students, although the attendance area
_ ,_ _,. , ,,__—_____ ^ , _ has over 1,500 students.
1 i , , . i ' •
: *• i * - , • ' . - '"•' To ameliorate overcrowding, the school
• ' - — """ district will build a new elementary
! ; f. . ~^i LH' I school two blocks away from the current
I . - *L * ' "V" ," *"• I school on a 5.5-acre site. Early in the
, , , • "" planning process for the new facility, the
".,1-. : design team of PACE Architects, Fanning
, > **• • ' I ~~~' :r^,, *" Howey & Associates, and school district
staff conducted a design workshop to
****** incorporate input from residents, parents,
teachers, and students. Throughout the
planning and design of the new school,
the team involved the neighborhood as
much as possible.
With guidance and assistance from political leaders, parents, students, and neighborhood residents, MPS and
its team developed a site and building plan that respects and enhances the neighborhood. Students and the
neighborhood will benefit from the community and recreational spaces inside and outside the building. The new
building, due to be completed in 2005, encourages community use of the library, gym, cafeteria, parent center,
and art and music rooms. In addition, the site is available for outdoor recreational and community functions, such
as a weekly farmer's market.
Because safety concerns, not just distance, can deter students from walking to school, the community outlined
nearly a dozen measures to promote a safe walking environment. "Operation Helping Hands" recruits and screens
parents and community members who volunteer to assist children on their way to and from school. "Safe haven"
homes will be identified by signs in their windows, neighbors will be encouraged to sit on their porches to keep
an eye on children, and volunteers will walk students to school.
Understanding the relationship between
a stable home environment and success
at school, the NSI is investing in the
neighborhood around the 37th Street
School as well. The school board,
working with Habitat for Humanity,
West End Development Corporation,
and the Milwaukee Housing Authority,
is committed to replacing 31 housing
units razed to make way for the new
school, For every home raized to
make way for the new school, two will
be either rehabilitated or built new.
The new housing units will be made
available with low-interest loans to
low-income households in an effort to
double the homeownership rate in the
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
neighborhood, from 25 percent to 50
percent.
This effort has already proven successful.
To date, there have been 26 properties
with a total of 31 units completed in
the 37th Street school attendance area.
Of these units, 23 are owner-occupied
and eight are renter-occupied. A total
of 17 new single-family homes have
been constructed and nine existing
properties rehabilitated. In addition, 15
other properties with 16 total units are
currently under construction or are being
rehabilitated. A total of 14 of these units
will be owner-occupied. By the end of
2004, a total of 41 properties with 47
units will have been completed with 37
new owner-occupants. To further illustrate the success of this project, redevelopment is not limited to the 37th
Street School's attendance area. Within a four-block radius of the attendance area, a total of 34 new single-family
homes are either complete or under construction for new owner-occupants.
The school board is spending $11.8 million on the new school and the housing providers $15 million on the
housing component. The board believes this $26.8 million commitment will not only improve education but
will also spur investment in the neighborhood. Using this approach, MPS is not just building a school; it is also
rebuilding the community—realizing the true meaning of a neighborhood school in all respects.
Project Information and Contacts
Project
Owner
37th Street Elementary School
Milwaukee Public Schools
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect
5.5 acres
69,858 square feet
$173.21 (Includes site acquisition, fees, fixed furniture and equipment)
$21,100 (estimate)
572
122 square feet
46 on-site
$12.1 million
PACE Architects, S.C.
233 North Water Street, Suite 201
Milwaukee, Wl 53202
Tel: (414) 273-3369 x15 Fax: (414) 273-5669
http://www.pacearchitects.com
School principal
Marion Reiter
1715 North 37th Street
Milwaukee, Wl 53208-1811
Tel: (414) 934-4600 Fax: (414) 934-4615
Email: 356@mail.milwaukee.k12.wi.us
Projected completion date
August 2005
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
JOHN A. JOHNSON ACHIEVEMENT PLUS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
St. Paul, Minnesota
The John A. Johnson School is once again an asset for the East Side neighborhood in St. Paul, Minnesota. This
former high school, built in 1911, was fully renovated and now serves more than 300 kindergarten through
sixth-grade students. By recycling the historic building, the
community recovered an asset that had stood vacant in their
neighborhood for decades. The school's rebirth has spurred
neighborhood revitalization and united a community that
worked together to achieve its vision.
Abandoned in the 1960s when a new high school was built
a mile away, the boarded-up school building loomed over
the East Side for decades, until community groups had a
tool to exploit its potential: "Achievement Plus," an initiative
introduced by the governor of Minnesota in 1996 to improve
public schools. With the state's financial support, the program
fosters public-private partnerships aimed at "integrating the
school community, families, and the resources of public
and private organizations to ensure academic achievement for all students." Each Achievement Plus school has
a family resource center, parenting classes, drop-in child care, family literacy nights, before- and after-school
activities, health and dental services, housing and job referrals, and public access to telephones and computers.
In 1997, the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, a St. Paul charity, identified the East Side neighborhood as an
exemplary place to implement this model, because of the historic school and the high levels of unemployment,
crime, and poverty in the area. To develop a revitalization plan, the foundation teamed with Ramsey County,
the city of St. Paul, and St. Paul Public Schools. From the beginning, the community was involved extensively
and continuously, reviewing and commenting on everything from the building design to the educational and
social programs. Community members visited other schools and model programs, assisted in hiring the staff
and principal, and recruited and registered students. Participants in the planning process agreed that the original
school should remain standing, though it would need extensive renovation. Ankeny Kell Architects, a St. Paul
firm, was hired to oversee the rehabilitation of the historic school and to design a new wing.
In 2000, the masonry exterior of the historic school building was refurbished while the interior was modernized
with art, new classrooms, and high-tech study spaces. Environmental principles that benefit the community and
the students guided the design and the construction. In both the old and new buildings, light sensors reduce energy
consumption, classroom windows open to provide daylight and natural ventilation, and nontoxic materials prevent
"off-gassing" of noxious substances. Materials from the old
school not used in the new design were salvaged for reuse.
In addition, the compact, three-story building fits seamlessly
into the community. The land conserved with compact
design has been turned into playing fields for the children and
community. The school won a St. Paul Heritage Preservation
Award in 2002, honored for its renovation and compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood.
One of the most innovative aspects of this school is its
relationship with the new Eastside YMCA. The county
wanted to provide social services in the area, but it was
• Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
financially infeasible. Meanwhile, a new 60,000-square-foot
YMCA located a few blocks away was having difficulty
attracting community use of its gymnasium, pool, child-
care center, multi-purpose rooms, and workout spaces. By
encouraging the school and the YMCA to co-locate, the
county saved a substantial amount of money. The YMCA
has increased its attendance, and the community school
now has more room for before- and after-school activities.
Shared programs include a teen center, youth development
programs, free swimming lessons, a track, and health and
special education classes.
Restoration of the Johnson school has also spawned
redevelopment in the surrounding neighborhood. A partnership between the Wilder Foundation, the East Side
Neighborhood Development Company, and the St. Paul Foundation established the Opportunity Housing
Investment Fund, which plans to build or renovate 75 homes near the elementary school within five years, making
them available to low-income families with children attending the school. The fund also finances new construction
and rehabilitation of older homes in the school attendance area; assists property owners in providing high-quality,
affordable, rental properties on the East Side by matching families from the school with vacant rental units; and
assists developers and landlords in creating high-quality, affordable housing in the area.
John A. Johnson Achievement Plus Elementary School has become the centerpiece of the community, attended
by 300 neighborhood children—only eight of whom ride the bus—as well as residents of all ages. According to
Ankeny Kell Architects, "The school was identified as a 'walking school.' In this way, a diverse community was
drawn together. The surrounding neighborhood was united and the school has become a source of community
pride." And by improving the quality of life in St. Paul's East Side, the school gives residents a reason to remain
in the neighborhood.
Project Information and Contacts
Project
John A. Johnson Achievement Plus Elementary School and Eastside YMCA
Owner
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect
St. Paul School District #625
12.5 acres
75,000 square feet renovation; 15,000 square feet addition
$124
$34,500
300+
252.50 square feet
No dedicated school parking
$21 million (Achievement Plus) $8 million (YMCA)
Ankeny Kell Architects, PA.
821 Raymond Avenue, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55114
Tel: (651)645-6806
http://www.ankenykell.com
School principal
Completion date
Mr. Frank Fennberg
740 York Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55106-3730
Tel: (651) 793-7300 Fax: (651) 793-7310
September 2000 (Achievement Plus), July 2001 (YMCA)
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
MOORE SQUARE MUSEUMS MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL
Raleigh, North Carolina
Students at Moore Square Museums Magnet Middle School have a special opportunity to explore history, science,
and the arts. Located in downtown Raleigh, North Carolina, the school has developed partnerships with several
local museums and arts facilities to enrich the curriculum with unique learning opportunities. The instructional
program allows students to attend museum
exhibits; view ballet, dramatic, and musical
performances; and work behind the scenes
with museum staff, technicians, archivists,
researchers, and other experts. Access to
downtown stores, businesses, and churches
adds to the stimulating learning environment.
The school has an enrollment of 500 students
(with a capacity of 600) in grades six through
eight, many of whom applied specifically
to attend the school. The school's unique
curriculum and downtown location have also
attracted excellent teachers. Only one block
away from the school, the Capital Area Transit
System's bus depot extends access to the school
beyond adjacent neighborhoods, creating a
socially and economically diverse student body. The school's location also allows students to get plenty of
exercise as they walk to school and to classes in nearby museums as part of their daily routines.
Despite its relatively small, four-acre site, the school incorporates a full-sized gymnasium and two playing fields,
which are used for daily physical education classes and intramural sports. By contrast, the typical acreage for a
comparable middle school in Raleigh and other cities in North Carolina is 25 acres or more.
The school is helping to stabilize the community by drawing new residents and other redevelopment to the
area. Moore Square is in the Downtown East Residential Redevelopment Area—an area targeted for housing
and community development. The city of Raleigh assembled the site by removing several blighted and vacant
structures. Moore Square has generated substantial community support for increasing downtown investment,
expanding residential opportunities within the
city, and concentrating sensitive development
within areas of existing infrastructure where
city services are already provided.
Neighborhood resident Wade Smith has lived
near the site of the new school for 37 years.
He noted that since the school's construction,
"the neighborhood has gotten quiet and more
peaceful," and "it's been a wonderful thing"
(Stradling 2003). In 2003, the Wake County
Public School System and the city of Raleigh
received the U.S. EPA's National Award for
Smart Growth Achievement for Moore Square
Museums Magnet Middle School.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
'- . . . * ,.. , 'v-- "!M»*" "' "''i/1'1"
:';? jk< 4; - * • f ,v; ^f;>> ^^ ^ * '
fill '> ' r ! '' : *f ^ * '' «, "*"
JVr ,
V »k* *
1 f J*, ,
Project Information and Contacts
Project
Moore Square Museums Magnet Middle School
Owner
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect
Wake County Public School System
4 acres
125,000 square feet
$107
$27.235
492
254 square feet
About 70
$13.4 million
Charles Todd
Little Diversified Architectural Consulting
4309 Emperor Blvd.
Durham, NC 27703
Tel: (919) 474-2510 Fax: (919) 474-2502
School principal
Cathy Bradley
301 South Person Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Tel: (919)664-5737
Email: cbradley@wcpss.net
Completion date
July 2002
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
LITTLETON HIGH SCHOOL
Littleton, New Hampshire
Known as one of the best small towns in America, Littleton, New Hampshire, has invested in its in-town high
school to provide state-of-the-art educational facilities and solidify the school's role in the community. For
years, the rural community of 6000 people debated
whether to renovate the existing high school or build
a new one elsewhere. With considerable community
support, Littleton approved the largest bond issue in
town history—$6 million—to renovate and expand the
school, ensuring it will remain an important community
resource.
Scheduled to reopen in fall 2004, the refurbished
school will have a new lobby leading to overhauled
classrooms, a new cafeteria, and music and technology
facilities. The renovations also ensured that the school
will be able to meet future enrollment with additional
classrooms on a new second floor, reached by a newly
installed elevator. The upgrades are expected to
improve the educational performance of an already great school system, selected as one of the 100 best school
districts in the country by Offspring Magazine in 2000.
The high school was recently chosen as one of a handful of schools nationwide to participate in NASA's Explorer
School Program. The program provides opportunities for schools, administrators, and students and their families
to collaborate with NASA to improve learning; participate in authentic experiences with NASA science; apply
NASA science, mathematics, and technology to real-world issues and problems; and participate in special events.
Partnership leaders hope to introduce and expand a "culture of technology" among students from the primary to
the secondary grades. The program recognizes that if students are not exposed to technology in high school, they
are unlikely to consider it as a career option in post-secondary training.
At Littleton High, this exposure has already produced results. A physics class recently devised a self-heating system
for school walkways in cooperation with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and local mentors, through a
grant from the Lemanson Foundation. In winter, waste heat from the school's boilers will be channeled into the
pavement to melt snow. If this system works, it will be incorporated in Littleton's Main Street renovation.
The school has also developed unique partnerships
with downtown businesses through "Main Street
Academies," created to respond to students' desire
to "make the learning real." Students attending the
business academy in Chutter's General Store, for
example, design the retailer's Web site, advertise,
market to targeted customers, and negotiate shipping
agreements. Those enrolled in the technology
academy work with the town's GIS program (Bingler,
"Community-based school planning," 2003).
Long a focal point of the town, the high school's
central location allows many students to walk. In fact,
only four school buses serve the school, and they are
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
generally only half full. Littleton High School also
makes great use of the community's civic amenities
to meet its athletic needs. The town-owned Remmick
Park, only a hundred yards from the school campus,
hosts outdoor athletics like field hockey, soccer, and
baseball. Additional fields for softball are only two
blocks away. The school uses other town parks and
nearby open spaces for events such as downhill and
cross-country skiing.
Littleton's commitment to its public high school is part
of a larger effort to recruit businesses and employees
to this New Hampshire town. Debating the renovation,
the chairman of the Board of Selectmen, Burton E.
Ingerson, noted, "This decision is not only about
schools, it is about the continuation of healthy and
viable community and economic development for our
collective future. We cannot expect to sustain economic
vitality and tax base growth without addressing our
school facility's needs" ("Expand and upgrade," 2002).
The renovation coincides with substantial investment in
the city's downtown. Since 1997, more than $2 million
has been invested in building improvements guided by
recommendations from the National Trust for Historic
Preservation's National Main Street Center. Littleton
received the Trust's Great American Main Street
Award in 2003.
| nil.... II J> Mvti ri
i.'i , _„ . -utP-li- _ il '.J
Project Information and Contacts
Project
Owner
Littleton High School
Littleton Union School District
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect and design/builder
School principal
Completion date
3 acres
96,000 square feet
$62.50
$15,000
400
240 square feet
102
$6 million
Daniel Herbert, INC.
1 Pleasant Street
Colebrook, NH 03576
Michael Couture
760 Kearsarge Road
North Conway, NH 03860
Tel: (603) 356-9606
I Alan Smith
105 School Street
Littleton, NH 03561-1238
Tel: (603) 444-5601
June 2004
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
ST. HELENA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
St. Helena, California
"It was never an option to rebuild at a different site," says architect John Stong. "The community really valued
the neighborhood location of the historic school." Renovating the St. Helena Elementary School in California's
scenic Napa Valley allowed the landmark to remain a firm fixture in the town's future. While preserving its
historic character and status as a
neighborhood center, the school has also
vastly improved its capabilities with
educational upgrades and a renovated
community theater.
St. Helena Elementary has been a
neighborhood asset for this town of
6,000 people since 1931. The school's
central location and short distance from
Main Street have enabled most students
and community members to walk or
ride their bikes to take advantage of
its resources; in fact, the school has no
dedicated parking lot (National Trust
for Historic Preservation n.d.). Only 13
percent of students ride the bus to school
each day.
During a 1996 renovation, a fire badly damaged the school. Cost considerations could have led the community
to scrap the renovation and rebuild at a different site. However, the public quickly rallied to keep the school in
their community and vigorously renewed the renovation effort. Residents pitched in by helping to raise money
and even painting. Performances in the school auditorium by the Napa Valley Shakespeare Group helped pay for
new blinds in the band room.
In addition to refurbished classrooms and cafeteria, the school received state-of-the-art data infrastructure upgrades
that will allow continued technological
advancement for years to come. The
community believes it is no coincidence
that test scores have increased since the
renovation.
The school continues to be a community
resource. Various organizations, such
as the Napa Valley Symphony, stage
concerts and performances in its theater.
Sports leagues and groups like the Boy
Scouts use its cafeteria and playing
fields. These community resources
allow students to attend extracurricular
activities without their parents having to
spend hours chauffeuring children from
event to event.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
The school also participates in a state-
sponsored program called "A Garden
in Every School," which encourages
hands-on nutrition education by having
students care for their own gardens. In
St. Helena, the students grow a variety
of fruits and vegetables, use them in
classroom education, and prepare them
for special celebrations. The entire
community is involved in this endeavor.
As noted in a gardening publication,
"Napa County's master gardeners
offer technical assistance, the Culinary
Institute of America hosts hands-on
cooking adventures, and a local nursery,
grocery, and wineries donate seeds,
labor, and money" (Kirschbaum 1999,
6).
By choosing to renovate the existing school instead of building a new one on the city's edge, St. Helena was able
to help maintain the high quality of life in this beautiful county.
Project Information and Contacts
Project
St. Helena Elementary School
Owner
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect
St. Helena Unified School District
7.7 acres
58,000 square feet
$128
$23,125
320
181 square feet
None
$7.4 million
Mr. Jon Strong, AIA
Quattrocchi Kwok Architects
636 Fifth Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel: (707) 576-0829 Fax: (707) 576-0295
Email: markq@qka.com
http://www.qka.com
School principal
Mr. Stan Augustine
1325 Adams Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Tel: (707) 967-2712 Fax: (707) 967-2756
Email: pdineen@sthelena.k12.ca.us
Completion date
1999
Photographs property of Tim Maloney Technical Imagery Studios, Santa Rosa, California.
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
NEPTUNE COMMUNITY SCHOOL
Neptune, New Jersey
The township of Neptune, New Jersey, has benefited from a state initiative that uses successful school rehabilitation
and construction as the centerpiece for community revitalization. Called the School Renaissance Zone (SRZ)
program, the initiative targets state investment to spur private economic development in neighborhoods around
schools.
Through the leadership of the local community
organization, the Midtown Neighborhood Empowerment
Council, Neptune was chosen as one of the state's first
SRZ sites. The original plan was to renovate the existing
elementary school. Built in 1927 on 3.5 acres, it was the
centerpiece of the community until water damaged the
building's hollow terra cotta-tiled walls and roof, making
it structurally unsound. A new school site was chosen a
few blocks away, on vacant land that had been cleared
during the 1970s. The site, at seven acres, is substantially
smaller than most new schools and lets the school to blend
into the community, allowing the majority of the students
to walk to school. Of the 800 children who will attend
the new Neptune school, 150 at most will ride the bus. To encourage teachers as well as students to use alternate
transportation, the school provides bike racks and showers and designates five parking spots for carpoolers.
The new school, scheduled to open in fall 2005, will offer innovative, state-of-the-art facilities in science, math,
and technology for up to 700 pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students. It will accommodate 150 children
who were previously bused to other schools. Neptune Township is happy to save these transportation costs, and
the students look forward to classes with friends in their neighborhood. Another benefit is that many special
education students, who were being bused to other schools, will be "mainstreamed" so that they can attend school
with their neighbors and friends while still receiving proper attention.
In addition to renovated classrooms, the community requested that the school incorporate social services programs
and amenities. The expanded school will accommodate new art and music studios, a guidance office, and an
intergenerational tutoring and community center. The community was particularly concerned about medical
and dental facilities, and the school understood the effects of poor health on students' behavior and inability
to concentrate and learn. Therefore, a health and dental clinic was included in the school, staffed by volunteers
from the New Jersey Shore University Medical Center.
The school facilities will be open for use long after
classes end, and the Monmouth County Recreational
Center will coordinate a summer camp. An adjacent site,
once used for light industry and occupied by abandoned
warehouses, will be rehabilitated and turned into a
childhood education center.
The school has been designed by SSP Architectural
Group according to guidelines established by the U.S.
Green Building Council. The architects are aiming
for a Gold rating of LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating
certification for the environmentally sensitive design.
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Geothermal heating and cooling systems and other i - - * 4
energy-efficient components, viewable by students I '•• ,.,}
through a unique transparent floor, will be incorporated
into a science curriculum so that students can learn first-
hand how their school uses and conserves energy. Storm
water recycling will irrigate the site, building materials
will incorporate recycled components, classrooms will \
be illuminated by daylight, and the school will feature a
landscaped roof. The rooftop area, built in collaboration
with Liberty Science Center, provides an additional
5,000 square feet of "green" classroom space and play I
area for the children.
- • t
Neptune aims to share the benefits of its school
revitalization with the surrounding neighborhood. The local planning agency has been working with the community
to encourage infill and affordable housing development. Habitat for Humanity and modular homebuilders have
already expressed interest in the area, and plans to develop the old school site are underway. According to Alfred
McNeill, former chief executive officer of the New Jersey Schools Construction Corp. (SCC), "New Jersey is
investing more than $8.6 billion in the renovation and construction of new schools. SCC and our state partners will
work diligently with the City to ensure this state investment produces a community of learning for the children of
Neptune, and a national model of urban redevelopment" (New Jersey Governor's Office 2003).
Because of its designation as an "Abbot" district, the new Neptune School is being entirely financed by state
funds. In 1998, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Abbott v. Burke that schools in 30 of the state's neediest
districts needed better facilities and would have all of their eligible costs paid by the state.
In announcing the Neptune School as New Jersey's first SRZ project, Governor Jim McGreevey said, "This
program is yet another initiative to ensure we are investing in the growth of our urban areas and older suburbs.
Through the collaborative efforts of our many state agencies, it enables us to create a school that will serve
as a magnet for the rebirth of a community. By leveraging the state's commitment, we can attract private and
non-profit investment to energize the local economy, build safe neighborhoods for our students, and secure a
successful future for our families" (ibid.).
Project Information and Contacts
Project
Neptune Community School (NCS) and Early Childhood Center (ECC)
Owner
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect
Projected completion date
New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation
7 acres (NCS), 3 acres (ECC)
149,000 square feet (NCS), 46,000 square feet (ECC)
$208 (NCS), $160 (ECC)
$44,286 (NCS), $27,407 (ECC)
700 (NCS), 270 (ECC)
| /uu ^INWO;, ^/u \c.^j^j)
213 square feet (NCS), 170 square feet (ECC)
FN/A
$31 million (NCS), $7.4 million (ECC)
SSP Architectural Group
Somerville, NJ
Tel: (908) 725-7800 Fax: (908) 725-7957
http://www.ssparchitects.com
Fall 2005 (NCS), April 2004 (ECC)
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
INDERKUM HIGH SCHOOL
Sacramento, California
North Natomas is a fast-growing planned community in California's capital. In 2001, the city approved a master
plan designed according to smart growth principles for the Natomas Town Center. Anchoring the community,
Inderkum High School was completed in August 2004.
The new two-story school occupies about thirty-six
acres, a departure from California's typical single-level
buildings on 60-acre sites. It shares facilities with Los
Rios Community College, a local branch of the public
library, and its athletic programs will use adjacent public
park land and a community aquatic center.
The design reviews for the high school solicited public
participation, and the steering committee included
representatives from the city's planning and parks and
recreation departments, the local regional transit light-
rail authority, and local property owners. Not only does
the school consume less land, it will also consume less
energy. It will get nearly one-third its power from solar
panels, and more than half the classrooms can be lit entirely by natural light. Water will be cooled and heated
naturally by hundreds of geothermal wells. Mechanical systems are exposed so that teachers can use them for
instruction. The senior manager for the project says that these features cost more initially, but he estimated they
would pay for themselves in energy savings and reduced maintenance costs in as little as five years (Vellinga
2004). The school design has already won a 2003 DesignShare Citation Award (Nacht and Lewis 2003), and
administrators hope it will be designated a "High Performance School" by the Collaborative for High Performance
Schools, which recognizes California schools that "meet design standards for energy efficiency, comfort, and
student health" (Vellinga 2004).
The high school, community college, and public library buildings form an outdoor courtyard open to all. Inderkum
students will be able to enroll in community college courses that meet their graduation requirements and earn
community college credits (Nacht and Lewis 2003). With such intermingling of high school students, college
students, and the public, school officials worried about security but decided that the compact design of the high
school made it easier to secure students within the school when necessary (Vellinga 2004).
The school plans to cooperate with neighborhood retail businesses to help students find career opportunities.
Natomas Unified School District Superintendent David
Tooker says, "Because of our location in the town center,
we wanted to conserve land, so we could have these
partnerships. . . We wanted to partner with other entities
to have access to more resources. Because we're part of
a park, we wanted the high school to blend in" (Gonzales
2003).
Another innovative feature of the Inderkum High School
is its creative financing. A private real estate firm, The
Eastridge Companies, pays for the school's construction,
then leases the building to the school district until the
district can afford to buy it back. Eastridge guaranteed
that the construction costs wouldn't run over $58 million,
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
and the district was able to start building the school
without having to wait for all of their eligible state
financing. Bond money that would have financed the
construction of Inderkum could be used instead for other
schools. Although the district has 20 to 30 years to buy
back the building, its administrators believe it can afford
to do so by the time the school opens in 2004 (ibid.).
Eventually, an extension of Sacramento's light-rail transit
system will be routed through the community, with a stop
next to Inderkum High School. Some in the community
opposed this route, claiming that it would bring "noise,
congestion, and crime" to their neighborhoods. Instead,
they wanted the light rail to run along Interstate 5, well
away from any residential areas. Nonetheless, the Regional Transit Board of Directors voted in December 2003
to run the line through Natomas Town Center, believing that it had to go "to where people live" ("Natomas Light
Rail," 2003). When the line opens to riders in 2012, it will give more transportation options to students, staff,
parents, and other community members using the school.
With the education center situated within the core of the entire planned community of North Natomas Center,
pedestrian and bicycle pathways integrate the site back into the community. Both on-street and off-street
dedicated pathways are being developed to link the education center with the adjacent commercial and retail
center, residential neighborhoods and eventually the regional park. Parking for the high school is reduced by
regional standards as a result of the access to these alternative means of transportation.
Project Information and Contacts
Project
Owner
Inderkum High School
The Eastridge Cos. (lease-leaseback agreement; Natomas Unified School District will
lease from Eastridge until it can afford to buy back the structure).
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect
36 acres
235,000 square feet
$246
$29,000
2,000
117 square feet
460
$58 million
Brian Maytum, Principal, K-12 and Higher Education
Nacht & Lewis Architects
600 Q Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 329-4000 Fax: (916) 329-7474
Email: bmaytum@nlarch.com
http://www.nlarch.com/portfolio/edu_inderkum.html
School principal
Ron Zimbalist
1901 Arena Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95834
Tel: (916) 567-5415 Fax: (916) 567-5406
Email: rzimbalist@natomas.k12.ca.us
http://www.natomas.k12.ca.us/ihsweb/ihs.html
Completion date
August 2004
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
WESTERLY CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND ODYSSEY CHARTER
SCHOOL
Denver, Colorado
The redevelopment of Stapleton Airport is one of the nation's largest and most ambitious infill projects, converting
Denver's old airport complex into 4,700 acres of homes, offices, shops, schools, and parks. Over six years, a
grassroots effort of more than 100 public meetings
gathered community opinion on reusing the site,
creating a unified vision of "a network of urban
villages, employment centers, and significant
open spaces, all linked by a commitment to
the protection of natural resources and the
development of human resources" (Stapleton
Development Foundation 1995). The master plan
emphasizes environmentally sound development,
walkable neighborhoods, and lifelong learning. It
rests on the principles of economic opportunity,
environmental responsibility, and social equity.
Stapleton will include a wide variety of housing
choices, most of which will be less than a ten-
minute walk from shops, schools, offices, and
parks. Some housing is reserved for seniors, some
for low-income residents, some for rental, and some for homeownership; homes and apartments feature diverse
designs, but all are required to meet the minimum environmental quality level established by the Built Green
Colorado program.
Stapleton residents, real estate developer Forest City, the City and County of Denver, and Denver Public Schools
(DPS) created an Education Master Plan, which addresses traditional K-12 public, private, and charter schools;
early childhood learning; adult education; vocational training; online learning; and partnerships with libraries,
churches, and cultural organizations. Based on this plan, DPS plans to open two K-5 schools, four K-8 schools,
and two high schools to serve Stapleton. The first elementary school, Westerly Creek Elementary School, opened
in August 2003 for preschool through fifth-grade students. In its first year, it became one of the most diverse
schools in Denver, with 46 percent African-American students (compared to an average of 17 percent in all DPS
elementary schools), 36 percent white (18 percent average), and 13 percent Latino (61 percent average). Forty-
two percent of students receive a free or reduced-
price lunch, compared to the 72 percent average
for DPS elementary schools (Denver Public
Schools n.d.).
Westerly Creek shares some facilities, such as the
cafeteria, gymnasium, library, and play areas, with
the Odyssey Charter School, a K-8 expeditionary
learning school modeled after the Outward Bound
program, which moved to Stapleton in August
2003. Both schools share the same new two-
story building, but they occupy different wings.
Following the principles to which all of Stapleton's
schools will adhere, the building occupies a small
site that fits into the town's compact, walkable
neighborhoods; shares public playing fields and
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
athletic facilities; and is designed to conserve
energy and natural resources.
The school building's three-story tower recalls
Stapleton's former airport control tower and
has become a visual landmark within the new
community. It includes a weather station and
a photovoltaic system that generates enough
electricity to light one classroom. A computer
monitor in a kiosk displays information from the
system, including the energy generated over time,
the money saved by using electricity from the
solar panels rather than from the utility, outside
air temperature, and wind speed. The system also
serves as an instructional tool for science classes
("Photovoltaic system," 2004).
Friends of the Center for Human Nutrition, a nonprofit organization, won a five-year grant in early 2004 to
demonstrate how community design can encourage physical activity, with Stapleton as its laboratory. Part of this
Active Living Partnership will include walking school buses, Safe Routes to School, and in-school educational
programs for the elementary school.
By January 2004—with only Westerly Creek Elementary and the Odyssey Charter School open—the chief
operating officer for Forest City Stapleton, John S. Lehigh, noted, "the emphasis on the quality of our schools is
already showing results. Drawn by the prospect and reality of innovative public schools within a short walk or
bike ride, families with children have purchased nearly half of the first 750 homes now occupied at Stapleton"
(Lehigh 2004, 8).
Project Information and Contacts
Project
Westerly Creek Elementary School and Odyssey Charter School
Owner
Land area
Building size
Cost per square foot
Cost per student
Number of students
Space per student
Parking spaces
Total project cost
Architect
Denver Public Schools
10 acres
80,000 square feet
$134
$18,772
350 (Westerly), 220 (Odyssey) (capacity)
140 square feet
62 parking spaces on-site
$10.7 million
I Anderson Mason Dale Architects
1615 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202
I Tel: (303) 294-9448 Fax: (303) 294-0762
www.amdarchitects.com
School principal
Patricia Kuhn
8800 East 28th Avenue
Denver, CO 80238-1247
Tel: (303) 322-5877 Fax: (303) 764-6816
http://westerlycreek.dpsk12.org
Completion date
August 2003
Photographer: Frank Ooms
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
NOBLE HIGH SCHOOL
North Berwick, Maine
Noble High School in rural Maine participates in the Coalition of Essential Schools, a nationwide organization
whose members adhere to a set of principles that encourages innovative teaching. The district uses a project-
based, interdisciplinary approach, where teams consisting of
math, science, English, and social studies teachers work with
learning communities of no more than 100 students. Noble
High School does not place students in classes or learning
communities according to ability and/or skill level; rather,
all classes are heterogeneous, and traditional departmental
structures have been dissolved. Democratic processes, a
collaborative environment, and standards-based curricula
are central to the educational program of the district. This
approach has brought dramatic results, with student scores
rising from the bottom third to the top third in state testing.
The district wanted to encourage life-long learning for all ages
and to provide much-needed space for community programs
in a rural area that had no real community core. Despite needing a space large enough for 1,500 students, the three
towns in the district wanted a friendly, small-school ambiance.
The year-long planning and design process was truly democratic, with intensive involvement by faculty,
students, administrators, staff, parents and community members. Architects held meetings with the faculty and
conducted in-depth interviews with each teacher individually and with all departments. They distributed detailed
questionnaires, gathering information on specific needs and general ideas about the design. A student committee
developed a survey questionnaire. Student facilitators led discussions in all classes. A half-day workshop was held
for faculty, students, administrators, parents and community members. Every element in the school's design was
based on determining what was best for students and began with five basic principles. The new facility should
• Abolish anonymity by creating schools within schools
• Reflect the concept of teacher as coach, student as worker
• Accommodate a curriculum that is collaboratively designed, interdisciplinary and project-based
• Be a community center that embraces the community so community functions are integrated and not
separated from education functions
• Be flexible in design, material, and function
These principles were expanded and formed the basis of a school that provides fifteen 100-student learning
communities, each taught by four teachers. The result of this
extensive planning process is a school that has a warm, small-
school ambiance despite its 270,000-square-foot size and
that provides space for numerous educational, recreational
and community programs.
The school recognizes and establishes a sense of ownership
for all three towns in the district. A wood arcade at the main
entrance leads to an inviting skylit "Town Square" with three
large, permanent display cases, one for each town, serving as
a visible reminder that they are all part of the school district.
The need for lifelong learning is embodied in the design
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
of Noble High School, with several community resources
co-located in the facility and partnerships that serve the
educational program of the school. A day-care center is
adjacent to an adult education center and enables community
members the opportunity to upgrade their skills and further
their education while their children are tended to in an
adjoining room. Students in a child-care training program
staff the center, and classes are offered during the day and in
the evening.
The need for community health care in the area has resulted
in a cooperative arrangement with a nearby hospital. Children
from Noble, as well as from other schools in the district, can
be treated at Noble's clinic. To provide as much privacy
as possible, the clinic has a separate entrance, eliminating the need for parents to use the main entrance of the
building. A parking area for the clinic is nearby.
Noble also has a small, 50-person restaurant, staffed by members of the school's culinary arts program. Students
prepare and serve meals at a very reasonable cost. Students
... »r; can practice a profession and community members can
interact with them.
Noble's 1000-seat performing arts center ranks among the
largest in the region and has professional-quality rigging,
lighting and audio equipment to make it a community
resource for many organizations. For athletic and fitness
activities, the sports fields, gymnasiums and fitness center at
the school are available for community use when not needed
for scholastic activities. The library is designed with a special
area for use by the community volunteers who come to the
school to read to children in the day-care center.
Project Information and Contacts
Project
Owner
Noble High School
School Administrative District #60
Land area
Building size
Number of students
Space per student
Total project cost
Architect
141 acres
270,000 square feet
1,500
185 square feet
$33,990,000
Daniel W. Cecil, AIA, Partner
Harriman Associates
I One Auburn Business Park
Auburn, Maine 04210
Tel: (107)784-5100
School principal
Completion date
Mr. Christian Elkington
P.O. Box 819
North Berwick, Maine 03906
Tel: (207)676-3217
September 6, 2001
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
REFERENCES
Bingler, Steven. 2003. "Community-based school planning: If not now, when?" Edutopia, Septembers.
. (Re)designing learning environments. Radio interview. George Lucas Educational Foundation, March 20. http://www.concordia.com/
files/redesigninglearning.pdf (accessed August 24, 2004).
Blank, Martin J., Atelia Melaville, and Bela P. Shah. 2003. Making the Difference: Research and Practice in Community Schools.
Washington, D.C.: Coalition for Community Schools. http://communityschools.org/CCSFullReport.pdf (accessed August 26,
2004).
Blurock, Thomas H. 2004. "Schools of Tomorrow." Panel discussion. American School & University. January 1, n.p. http://asumag.com/
mag/university_schools_tomorrow/ (accessed August 26, 2004).
California Department of Transportation. 2004. Safe routes to school. Welcome to California. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/
saferoute2.htm (accessed August 26, 2004).
Chicago Public Schools. 2003. Office of After School and Community School Programs. http://www.cps.k12.il.us/Communications/
Chicago_Educator/Community_Centers/community_centers.html (accessed August 26, 2004).
Chicago Public Schools. 2003. Six more schools open as community centers. The Chicago Educator, January/February, n.p. http:
//www.cps.k12.il.us/Communications/Chicago_Educator/Communitv_Centers/communitv_centers.html (accessed August 26,
2004).
Cotton, Kathleen. 2001. New Small Learning Communities: Findings from Recent Literature. N.P: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Council of Educational Facility Planners. 2004. Creating Connections: The CEFPI Guide for Educational Facility Planning.
Cuningham Group. 2002. Schools That Fit. Minneapolis: Cuningham Group.
Denver Public Schools. School Guide, n.d. http://dps.schools.net/cgi-bin/static/home.html/co (accessed August 24, 2004).
Dreier, William H. and Willis Goudy. 1994. Is there life in town after the death of the high school? High schools and the population of
Midwest towns. Paper presented at the annual Rural and Small Schools Conference, Manhattan, KS, October 24.
Expand and upgrade Littleton high school. 2002. The Caledonian-Record (St. Johnsberry, VT), February 27.
Florida Division of Community Planning. 2004. Welcome to DCA's school planning Web page. MyFlorida.com. http://www.dca.state.fl.us/
fdcp/DCP/SchoolPlanning/school_planning.htm (accessed August 26, 2004).
Florida Growth Management Study Commission. 2002. http://www.floridagrowth.org/ (accessed August 26, 2004).
Forest City Stapleton, Inc. 2003. Stapleton: The Art of Urban Living. Summer/Fall.
Fried, David. 2004. Farm operators worry about proposed school site. North County Times (San Diego, CA).
Gonzales, Anne. 2003. Builder turns landlord in school construction plan. Sacramento Business Journal, July 25.
Historic preservation. 2004. Columbus Landmarks Foundation. http://www.columbuslandmarks.org/preservation/issues.php?view=chs
(accessed August 26, 2004).
Irmsher, Karen. 1997. "School Size." Eric Digest 113 (July): n.p. http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest113.html (accessed
August 26, 2004).
Kirschbaum, Pamela R. 1999. Gardening in the Schoolyard. Community Greening Review 9: 6. http://www.communitygarden.org/pubs/
comgreenrev-99.pdf (accessed August 24, 2004).
Lawrence, Barbara Kent et al. 2002. Dollars and Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools. Cincinnati: KnowledgeWorks
Foundation.
Lehigh, John. 2004. Denver publicschools share Stapleton's spotlight. The Front Porch, January/February, http://www.stapletondenver.com/
pdf/2004Jan_feb.pdf (accessed May 20, 2004).
Lentz, Ed. 2003. Landmarks for learning: Preservation process becomes a model in Ohio. Columbus Business First, March 7. http:
//www.biziournals.com/columbus/stories/2003/03/10/focus1.html?page=1 (accessed August 26, 2004).
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Leonard, Kerry. 2004. Schools of tomorrow. Panel discussion. American School & University. January 1, n.p. http://asumag.com/mag/
universitv_schools_tomorrow/ accessed August 26, 2004).
Lewis, Laurie et al. 2000. Condition of America's Public School Facilities, 1999. NCES 2000-032. Washington, DC: NCES.
Los Angeles Unified School District. 2003. School construction program—Phases I and II. Fact Sheet, http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/
newLAUSDnet/pdf/FACTSHEET_SchoolConstruction.pdf
Los Angeles Unified School District. 2004. District A: New School Construction, http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/district_a/resources/NewSite/
Fac/newschools.htm (accessed August 26, 2004).
Lyson, Thomas A. 2002. What does a school mean to a community? Assessing the social and economic benefits of schools to rural
villages in New York. Journal of Research in Rural Education: 17(3): 131-137 pages 7-8. http://www.sad12.com/coalition/docs/
tlvson.pdf. (accessed August 26, 2004).
McClelland, Mac and Keith Schneider. 2004. Hard Lessons: Causes and Consequences of Michigan's School Construction Boom.
Beulah, Ml: Michigan Land Use Institute.
McConnaughey, Janet. 2003. CDC issues diabetes warning for children. Washington Post, June 16.
Maine State Planning Office. N.d. Education and School Siting Resources, http://www.state.me.us/spo/landuse/resources/education.php
(accessed August 26, 2004).
Maryland Public School Construction Program. N.d. http://www.pscp.state.md.us/ (accessed August 26, 2004).
.Background Material. Presented to the Task Force to Study Public School Facilities, August 2002. http://mlis.state.md.us/other/
education/public_school_facilities/Background_Material.pdf (accessed August 26, 2004).
.Administrative Procedures: Aging school Program. February 2001. http://www.pscp.state.md.us/Programs/ASP/
ADMINPROCASP%202002.doc (accessed August 26, 2004).
Milwaukee Department of City Development. 2003. MPS, City, partners and students celebrate opening of Browning School and Silver
Spring Neighborhood Center. Press release, http://www.mkedcd.org/news/2003/browning.html (accessed August 27. 2004).
Milwaukee Public Schools. 2004. MPS Neighborhood Schools. http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/supt/Pages/NIS/NSI2.html (accessesd
August 27, 2004).
Nacht and Lewis Architects. 2003. Project narrative. Inderkum High School DesignShare Awards 2003. http://www.designshare.com/
Awards/2003/proiects/proiect_view_narrative.asp?proiectjd=393 (accessed August 26, 2004).
National Education Association. 2000. Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost? Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
National Trust for Historic Preservation. N.d. St. Helena Elementary School. Historic Schools Success Stories, http://www.nationaltrust.org/
issues/schools/success/StHelena_CA.pdf (accessed May 21, 2004).
. 2000. Historic Pennsylvania schools get a fresh start. Press release. History Is in Our Hands, http://www.nationaltrust.org/news/
docs/20001018_award_pennsvlvania.html accessed August 26, 2004).
Natomas light rail extension approved over vigorous protests. 2003. KXTV NewslO Net (Sacramento, CA). December 17. http://
www.kxtv10.com/storyfull.asp?id=5993. Accessed May 19, 2004.
New Jersey Governor's Office. 2003. "McGreevey announces Neptune School renaissance zone project." Press release. April 30. http:
//www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=1156. Accessed May 10, 2004.
New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation. 2004. School Renaissance Zones, http://www.niscc.com/specialprograms/
RenaissanceZones.asp (accessed August 26, 2004).
New Schools, Better Neighborhoods. 2003. Hertzberg on California's $25 billion state school bonds (Interview with Robert Hertzberg). NSBN
Newsletter, Spring, http://www.nsbn.org/publications/newsletters/spring2004/hertzberg.php (accessed August 26, 2004).
Pennsylvania Department of Education. School Construction Reimbursement Criteria http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/cwp/
view.asp?A=11&Q=56801 (accessed August 26, 2004).
Photovoltaic system comes to Westerly Creek campus. 2004. The Front Porch, May. http://www.stapletondenver.com/pdf/2004_may.pdf
(accessed May 20, 2004).
Council of Educational Facility Planners International •
-------
Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth
Raymond, Martha J. and Barbara Powers. 2004. Preserving historic school buildings. Ohio Historic Preservation Office: Preserving
Historic Schools, http://www.ohiohistorv.org/resource/histpres/toolbox/schools.html (accessed August 26, 2004).
Rural School and Community Trust. N. d. School size: Research based conclusions. Focus on Arkansas, http://www.ruraledu.org/docs/
arkansas/schoolsize.doc (accessed March 17, 2004).
Safe routes to school. 2004. Walk Arlington, http://www.walkarlington.org/walkable/saferoutes.html (accessed August 26, 2004).
San Diego Model School Agency. N.d. http://www.sdmodelschool.net/ (accessed August 26, 2004).
San Diego model school project to create "urban village."2002. The Urban Educator 11 (6): n.p. http://www.cgcs.org/urbaneducator/2002/
oct2_vol_11_no_6_article_4/oct2_vol_1 1_no_6_article_4.html (accessed August 26, 2004).
Scroggs, Stephen A. 2004. Memo to Neil G. Pedersen, Superintendent, Chapel Hill-Carborro City Schools. Chapel Hill, NC, January 5.
http://www.chccs.k12.nc.us/board/11504smartgrowth.pdf (accessed August 26, 2004).
Spector, Stephen. 2002. Creating Schools and Strengthening Communities through Adaptive Reuse. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Stapleton Development Foundation. 1995 Stapleton Development Plan, http://www.stapletondenver.com/communitv/education/
masterplan_planchapters.asp (accessed August 24, 2004).
Stein, Rob. 2004. Rise in blood pressure among children cited. Washington Post, May 5.
Stradling, Richard. 2003. School receives "smart growth" award. The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC), October 27.
South Carolina. Off ice of the Govern or, MarkSanford Governor. Press Release: Elimination of Acreage Requirements will Allow for more
Community-Based Schools in SC. July 16, 2003. http://www.schotline.com/sanford071703.htm (accessed August 26, 2004).
Toledo Public Schools. 2002. Annual Report 2001-2002. http://www.tps.org/pdf/Report_Web_Final-2.pdf (accessed August 27, 2004).
Trinity College. N.d. Trinity/SINA Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative.
http://offices.trincoll.edu/depts_pub/heights/
http://www.trincoll.edu/pub/reporter/W01/Corridor.htm
http://www.learningcorridor.org/about/welcome.htm (accessed August 26, 2004).
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. Barriers to children walking and bicycling to school—United States, 1999.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (32): 701-704.
U.S. Department of Education. 2000. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Baby Boom Echo Report. Washington, DC: NCES,
August 21.
. 2002. Chapter 1. Table 3. Digest of Education Statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: NCES. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/
tables/dt003.asp (accessed August 24, 2004).
. 2002. Chapter 2. Elementary and Secondary Education. Washington, DC: NCES. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/
ch_2.asp (accessed August 24, 2004).
. 2002. Statistics of state school systems. Washington, DC: NCES, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting. Washington: EPA. http://
www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/school_travel.pdf (accessed August 26, 2004).
. 2004. What is smart growth? Smart Growth. March 11, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_sg.htm (accessed August
24, 2004). For more information, explore the EPA's Smart Growth beginning at http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.
Vellinga, Mary Lynne. 2004. Old is new again. Sacramento Bee, May 16.
Weihs, Janell. 2003. School site size—How many acres are necessary? Issuetrak: A CEFPI Brief on Educational Facility Issues.
September, http://www.cefp!.org/pdf/state_guidelines.pdf (accessed August 26, 2004).
Wowk, Mike. 2004. Schools are told to fight sprawl. The Detroit News, May 9. http://www.detnews.com/2004/schools/0405/09/b05m-
146935.htm (accessed August 26, 2004).
Wulfsen, Jeff. School finance: School building assistance. N.d. Massachusetts Department of Education. http://finance1 .doe.mass.edu/
sbuilding/ (accessed August 26, 2004).
< Council of Educational Facility Planners International
------- |