Blurock: It's interesting to think about things that you know will inevitably change. I mean, we know that eventually we are going to have wireless computer networks, and yet we continue to build hard-wired tables with a number of computers on them in a classroom. But technological systems have their own inherent flexibility — you can go anywhere and not be tied to a wall or electrical plug.

Dyck: I think flexibility has a lot of different layers, and you can integrate a lot of these topics we're talking about into this notion of flexibility: flexibility moment to moment, hour to hour, day to day, month to month, year to year. And it has to do with the notion of real-time learning and the fact that, from moment to moment, you might need a different apparatus and a different connectivity and a different resource of some sort, and having that sort of flexibility. Pam has said, and rightly so, that we have to give architectural definition and still build flexibility.

Another layer of flexibility is the complete integration of community into school. For example, does an adult have to learn in a different place from a teenager? The other question is, does a teenager, does a kindergartener learn differently from an adult? It's a whole notion of programmatic flexibility. I think this notion of integration requires a high level of flexibility, the end of which we can hardly begin to define.

Blurock: How much of this depends on moving teachers out of their own classroom?

Dyck: Well, that's step one. Obviously, there's a huge amount of resistance to that, because that's a turf battle that's existed since the beginning of the one-room school. That approach is convenient for the teacher in a conventional teaching setting.

Blurock: Turf is the enemy of flexibility and community and all that stuff.

AS&U: Switching gears a bit, I'd like to talk about sustainability. Many education administrators don't realize the full spectrum of what sustainability can afford school facilities. How will sustainability influence the way schools look and function in the future?

Blurock: If sustainability is not inevitable, how are we going to survive? I think there are several items. First of all, there's awareness. Second of all, there are still too many schools that are so concerned with first cost that they don't consider life-cycle cost.

Loeffelman: When you look at sustainability and all the topics that it encompasses, isn't that what we're all supposed to be doing anyhow? Aren't we supposed to reuse existing resources if we can? I think part of sustainability is breaking down the myth that it's smoke-and-mirrors and bells-and-whistles and all these different things. There are a lot of tenets that are part of sustainability that are just part of good design.

The issue of funding sources and who's controlling the operating dollars vs. first-cost capital dollars is a huge topic, both in terms of K-12 and higher education. It's totally different departments, so how are you going to get people to agree that they should spend more out of their pocket of money just because it's going to save those guys pockets of money down the line. This is something that really needs to be addressed from a policy level.

Blurock: And if you look at the schools we are building today versus the schools that we built 50 years ago, one of the stark differences is the amount of energy they take to operate. On the west coast, 30 or 40 years ago, you would never air-condition a school building. Today, it's different. So, at the same time that we are talking about sustainability, we have more electrical requirements, more HVAC requirements, generally more energy requirements. How do we resolve those apparent contradictions?

Dyck: I like to look at sustainability starting with learning. What is sustainable learning? It's connected, thematic. The important thing is to talk about sustainability at the beginning as to what is sustainable learning. It's not just rote memorization like schools in the past. It certainly has to do more with understanding.

Then you proceed to discuss what is sustainable programming. That's where the community, integration, comes in. Where you truly get the whole notion of the learning community. Then once we accept sustainability as a whole value system or lifestyle, then we can start talking about the physical aspect, such as energy conservation, daylighting, recycling, siting and planning, reusing existing infrastructure, etc.

Hendricks: We can't overemphasize the significance of the fact that our culture overvalues low first cost. One of the big disincentives to more sustainable building practices is the fact that in many states there are two buckets of money — capital and operating — and an impermeable barrier between them. You can't pull from operating money to expend a little additional first cost, even though you might save ten times that over the building's life.

There also is a general cultural tendency to think in the short term. As an example, there are a number of large districts that are putting up buildings very quickly to meet demand, and relying on prototypes to deliver buildings quickly. One of the many problems with the prototyping of school buildings is often little attention is paid to the most basic levels of siting and looking at how climate and sun play into the building's placement. These are the foundation concepts of sustainable building.

Leonard: I would compare sustainability to what we saw with technology. When technology and computers first were making their impact on education, some people said this is the savior for education, and technology will radically change education. That's not true. It has changed education, but I don't think it's a radical change. Sustainability and sustainable communities need to be viewed at a big-picture level. Some people only see one way — a sustainable way; just like some people only saw a technology way.

We're starting to deal with those [sustainable] issues, but on a more practical level. How does it save energy dollars or how does it save long-term maintenance costs? And people are starting to understand the issues; the added layer of sophistication that technology has brought to our planning and design of schools, the added layer of sophistication that sustainability will bring to that, are just a cumulative adding of layers of sophistication that make our job a little bit tougher — but make our buildings a whole lot better.

AS&U: Environmental factors have had a huge impact on many education facilities, from asbestos and lead to mold and IAQ problems. How do you see indoor environmental quality influencing how schools will be used or look in the future?

Dyck: There is a growing body of research in terms of how IAQ, as well as other environmental factors, affect learning. The EPA has a kit focusing on school IAQ issues, and I think that's a great tool. Research supports the fact that indoor air quality affects learning, health and human development.

Loeffelman: Isn't it interesting that people are starting to recognize that environment affects learning. As architects, we've always said that the environment affects learning. Now, there are studies about daylighting; there are studies about indoor air quality; there are studies about this and that. What is important is that we are starting to be able to statistically, if you will, support good design.

Hendricks: One of my fears about the whole issue of indoor air quality is it has the potential to do away with all sorts of soft surfaces in the school environment. I think this is one of the places where our values about schools are in conflict.

There are some folks in the IAQ arena who are advocating that we discontinue any use of carpeting in schools, and I fear that will also eventually mean any upholstered furniture. While I understand that some environmental factors have strong effects on some children, we're at risk of other kinds of compromises for all. If we're serious about accommodating individual students' needs, then we should be providing a variety of surfaces and a variety of kinds of furnishings where kids can be comfortable. As adults, we get uncomfortable sitting all day in one position, but children are even less able to do that and maintain any attention or focus. So I see this trend as having unintended consequences for our ability to accommodate student learning in a variety of other ways.

Blurock: One of the themes that has occurred over and over again is are we going to plan schools defensively or offensively? Are we going to have an eye to the future or just be constantly defending ourselves against all the boogeymen that are out there?

Leonard: It's great that we have awareness of sustainability issues and indoor air quality. But what I think is really important is that people understand that these are things that you can measure and that these issues impact learning. What we need to do is take that same awareness and apply it to how kids learn, and realize that they all learn differently and that environment affects them all. We spend so much time on the symptoms, but really need to get back to focusing on the problems we're really trying to solve — which is improving the learning environment.