Here is an interesting topic that ranges from truly common sense information to some very radical ideas.  I suppose my question is why so many schools go with the cookie cutter approach to school design.  Numerous studies exist on the effects of poor air circulation, temperature, color, and light levels on office workers, and the information shows drastic effects from simple tweaks to just those few easily considered categories.  Why not schools?

The answer, sadly, is that the studies are there.  They're just widely ignored for traditional building techniques.  The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities has a great study that brought together results from dozens of other studies.   The document breaks facilities down into different areas of concern and addresses each area with current studies.  As a result, there are some really interesting trends that come out.

Per the document, one in five of America's children suffer from sick building syndrome due to poor indoor air quality.  This in turn means that those children miss more school. This especially affects children with lung issues, but has a smaller effect on all children exposed to the indoor air quality. Similarly, air temperature and humidity contribute to poor indoor air quality, on one end of the spectrum leading to mold and on another end children were absent more often from schools with almost no humidity.  They go on to state that students do best in humidity levels of between 40 and 70% and temperatures between 68 -74 degrees Farenheit.  Ventilation issues contribute to the problem as many schools built in the 1970s, during some of the worst energy problems that many countries experienced, tend to have severely inadequate air flow.  Studies have found that this poor ventilation and increased carbon dioxide levels lead to poor concentration on tests, and once again, health problems.

I think it's at this point that I start picturing many of the schools here in Pittsburgh and immediately zeroing in on the fact that many don't have air conditioning.  Sure, it saves money to not add it to the school, and there are only a few weeks at the beginning and end of the year where the temperature might get so high the kids are uncomfortable, but if the study is correct, those are days when the kids are going to learn very little just from suffering through the heat.  I've seen the ovens that some of those classrooms turn into.  Studies show that teacher performance also severely degrades under these conditions. Clearly, this is something that a new facility would want to address.

Lighting also has significant effects on student performance.  Studies cited in the report show that students finish tests faster in higher lit areas.  Reduction of off-task behavior and general mood also shows positive changes due to natural light.  In other words, darker schools with inadequate windows will, in turn, have children who tend to behave worse and do worse on tests.

Acoustics are another area that affects children strongly.  Concentration suffers with poor noise levels.  Blood pressure goes up.  Children and teachers in poor acoustic environments can feel overwhelmed and stressed.   Once again, none of these different areas should be surprising.  Tons of thought has been put into this for adults, our children deserve no less.  To read the article:

http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf

The topics we've just hit on are common sense changes to physical facilities.  Some may be expensive, but none are focused on extreme changes to the layout of the school building.  Even having more green play space may have positive effects on the concentration of children, especially those with ADHD:

http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/CopingWithADD.pdf 

There are, however, more radical studies that do focus on significant building redesign.  In this the theorists follow the principles of human-centered design, since radical changes to school design tend to also stem from radical changes in thoughts about student learning.  Even the word learning posits a significant change from the original pedagogical model of passive students.  An example of how the concept affects the space is in technology.  Students in the modern world are used to receiving information in multiple modalities with ease of access to technology all around them; therefore, the spaces where they will be doing learning and studying need to allow for that kind of activity, places where technology is not just relegated to the computer lab, but integrated into the space as a comfortable part of everyday learning.

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102i.pdf

Picture this:

High School students slip out of class for a study hall.  They walk into a large common area with easily accessible computers.  Maybe they stop to get a drink and a snack as they sit to work.  The chairs they sit in are comfortable and ergonomic.  Rolling wheels allow them to easily push themselves to a friend's workstation to discuss a project.  The computers, whether they be towers or laptops, are on desks in clusters designed to allow collaboration between students without them having to raise their voices.  Plenty of sunlight filters in, but it's set at an angle so that the screens aren't affected by glare.  The study hall facilitator walks around and helps students. She doesn't discourage them collaborating with each other and even gives them prompts on how to break down their tasks into more manageable chunks.

In this comfortable an environment, students are primed to learn.  They don't feel like they are being forcefed information, since they're simply working on a project and googling to update themselves on the topics they need.  Because they're getting plenty of light, air and the noise levels are accounted for, they are primed to work their best.