Why charter schools could help the New Urbanism

The Charter of the New Urbanism states that “civic, institutional and commercial activity should be embedded in neighborhoods and districts, not isolated in remote, single-use complexes. Schools should be sized and located to enable children to walk or bicycle to them.” Building small schools in new urban neighborhoods is a more difficult proposition than it sounds. Like retail stores, post offices and other institutions, schools in the U.S. have been designed using strictly suburban models in recent decades; they generally are located in isolated pods accessible only by automobile. The days of schools integrated into walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods have long since gone, and new urbanist planners and developers face a huge challenge if they want to bring these civic institutions back. A report by new urbanists Michael Garber, John Anderson and Thomas DiGiovanni, Scale & Care: Charter Schools & New Urbanism, explains why schools are a critical part of the new urbanist movement. The authors argue that small-scale neighborhood schools, located in close proximity to homes, businesses and other institutions, are beneficial to children and the community as a whole. Designs and diagrams are presented to show how these schools could fit into a traditional neighborhood development (TND). According to the authors, “charter schools” are promising vehicles for realizing educational goals in many TNDs. Charter schools are autonomous, tax-funded public schools that are essentially self-governing — free of many bureaucratic constraints placed on conventional public schools. Twenty-nine states have passed laws allowing charter schools, making them the most popular school reform movement in recent years. Of five schools operating or under construction in new urbanist projects, one is a charter school, three conventionally administered public schools, and one private (see accompanying article). The following are excerpts from Scale & Care: Small school advantages In 1930, the U.S. had 128,000 school districts and 262,000 schools. Today, the number of school districts has decreased to 15,000, a nearly nine-fold reduction. The number of schools has dropped by 68 percent since 1930, while the K-12 student population has grown by 64 percent. Enormous schools run by large, central district offices have become more and more common, where small, neighborhood schools run by local communities have become increasingly rare. These massive changes did not happen without detractors, and there has been a large body of research, dating back to the late 1940s, on the impact of increased school size on student outcomes. All else held equal (particularly family income), students in smaller schools academically outperform students in larger ones. Economy of scale, though useful in businesses and mass production, is inappropriate for the needs of a school. As with roads, shopping malls and sprawling large-lot subdivisions, bigger is not better. A 1992 study by the Exxon Education Foundation found that there is a point where school size actually creates penalties, or “diseconomies” of scale, at sizes greater than 600 students for an elementary school, or greater than 1,400-1,600 students for a high school. Small, neighborhood-scale schools provide a learning environment where students feel more significant, are more accountable and inclined to participate in class and extracurricular activities. The physical scale of a neighborhood school is more manageable, more approachable for parents and other community members. Smaller neighborhood schools lessen the negative impacts (whether real or perceived) that can be associated with school use, including traffic or large groups of unsupervised children converging before or after school. Safety is a key benefit of a smaller school. A 1974 Presidential Panel determined that “in a school larger than about 500 students, teachers no longer know the names of students they do not teach, and the principal no longer knows students by name. At about 1,000 students, the principal become unable to distinguish whether a particular young person belongs to a school.” Most schools today are islands unto themselves with a tenuous connection to adjacent civic, residential and/or commercial areas. Small schools, situated in a vital part of a real mixed-use community, can be a place where links are forged. They can expose students to the adult work environment, offer facilities for the care of employees’ children, and can be combined with uses such as day-care facilities and businesses which makes drop off and pick up more efficient for parents and can even lessen car trips. the Charter school difference Except for basic health safety, and nondiscrimination laws, most charter schools operate unencumbered by bureaucracy. The autonomous structure allows the schools the flexibility to differentiate programs. Charters are typically granted for five years. In exchange for greater freedom, charter schools are held to a greater standard of accountability. If schools fail to meet the terms of their charters, the charter is revoked. Charters can be rescinded early for financial mismanagement, noncompliance with law or other good cause. Charter terms frequently include student performance objectives. Nationwide there are 787 operating charter schools, serving more than 15,000 students. The strongest of the charter school laws are in 15 states (including the District of Columbia), where the majority of the schools currently are operating. These are, ranked from strongest laws to weakest: Arizona, District of Columbia, Michigan, Delaware, North Carolina,Florida, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, California, Texas and Colorado. charter schools and the new urbanism: a symbiosis Neotraditional communities emphasize an intimate, human scale, with many uses integrated into thriving, walkable neighborhoods able to serve most residents’ day-to-day needs. Schools should be an integral part of this vision. Because of the unique provisions of charter school law, and the value that quality schools add to development projects, charter school operators and new urbanist developers have much to offer one another. The single largest problem for charter schools nationwide is their inability to secure affordable, safe, quality facilities. New urbanist developers could incorporate charter schools in their developments as anchor tenants, providing them with leased space. A new urbanist developer could attract a mixed collection of civic, commercial and residential tenants to a development, increasing the value of the project for both the developer and the school. Locating a variety of facilities near the charter school would be of tremendous benefit to charter operators, potentially reducing their operating costs by allowing them to subcontract for existing products and services. A general rule of thumb is that one-third of a school’s construction costs are associated with an auditorium, gym and cafeteria. These uses could be coordinated and/or shared with other neighborhood facilities, such as a library, community recreation center, YMCA or youth club, park/playground, service organization hall and church (parking can be shared also). Businesses and organizations that might take part in such a project include a Kinko’s type copy center to replace the need for some central business space; a coffee shop as an alternative to a faculty lounge; restaurants or delis that could provide catering services in place of a school cafeteria; and a private day-care center for preschoolers or after school care. A neighborhood center often includes a public library, which has obvious benefits for a school. Developers reap the benefit of a high-circulation environment, and the location of a quality school can help make residential and commercial development more attractive. Schools may offer public relations and political advantages to developers, as well. If a charter school were incorporated into a TND, for example, parents and organizers of the school become advocates for the project. New urbanist school prototype A prototype was developed of a charter school building which is integrated into a new urbanist town or neighborhood center (see plan). The building typology is consistent with the Technique of Town Planning, the Lexicon of the New Urbanism by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. The basic form is a three-story, 10,000 square foot (72 feet by 48 feet) building, designed to handle up to 150 students at approximately 65 square feet per student (see rendering and building plan). It could be located mid-block, among other town center uses, or as a stand-alone building. The basic building form can be repeated as necessary to accommodate a larger school type. One of the central design tenets for this prototypical building is that it be easily convertible for retail/office/apartment/loft uses if the school were to outgrow the building or go out of business. The first floor incorporates storefront type windows and a 16-foot height to accommodate future retail. The second and third floors can easily be used for office or apartment space. The organization of the building’s interior space lends itself to the creation of six 24-foot-square classrooms, with three 12 foot by 24 foot spaces that could be adapted for special uses, such as a computer lab or parents’ space, and remaining space for private teachers’ alcoves. Permanent interior walls are kept to a minimum, thus maximizing the flexibility for administrators and teachers to organize space to fit their needs. A large internal hallway is created in the rear of the building, with access to public areas — restrooms, elevator and outside staircase. The upper floor would accommodate an assembly space, if desired. A 10-foot-wide rear balcony and stairway is provided as an additional circulation corridor. Ideally, the school would be situated near some public outdoor area, such as a park or green, which would provide outdoor play space. Alternately, the parking lot could be used as a play space, or a space created behind a line of adjacent retail liner buildings. Report generates interest The authors have obtained a commitment for front-end financial assistance to charter school tenants from a major national foundation (specific information is being withheld pending closure of the first school deals), and are pursuing additional facility support from other charitable foundations. They also are developing additional town center school prototypes for consideration by charter operators and town builders. In recent months, they have pursued leads on potential charter/NU projects in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, Detroit, the District of Columbia and Austin, Texas. Nationally syndicated urban affairs columnist Neil Pierce wrote a piece on charter schools which featured the Scale & Care report. His column appeared in newspapers August 30. For further information or to obtain the full report, contact: Michael Garber of Garber Associates, 1011 Braman Street, Lansing, MI 48910, (517) 374-7734; John Anderson of Anderson Lamb & Associates, 870 South Smith Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55107, (612) 225-9515; or Thomas DiGiovanni of Heritage Partners, 426 Broadway, Suite 205, Chico, CA 95928, (530) 893-8982.