Lower School Takes a Big Step

As mentioned in previous posts, design thinking has been embraced by the Lower School faculty, and students at all grade levels have been engaging in projects that feature design thinking (both big and small). While all of this was happening, it came to pass that there were some capital projects for maintenance upgrades on deck for the Lower School that would be completed over the summer. This presented a unique opportunity to the leadership of the Lower School to actually create a "design center" in part of the campus.

The Division Head began by drafting out the possibilities, and then meeting individually with several folks who would be involved in the process. He then vetted the idea with the Lower School leadership team and got their approval. Finally, the plan was shared with the full faculty at a faculty meeting in early February, and once again, it was met with approval. Several discussions with capital project managers and facility developing personnel ensued, and it appears that starting in the 2015-2016 school year, our Lower School will have a true "design center" on its campus!

The way this will be achieved is to take several classes and programs that had been spread across campus and move them into more natural adjacencies. For example, the space where the design center will be currently houses our library, two science classes, a junior kindergarten class, and a language class. The library and science rooms will stay. The language class will move to be near the other language teachers, which means our art room can move into the area with our library and science rooms. The junior kindergarten class will also relocate into a better adjacency with other junior kindergarten rooms, which will allow our wood shop program to also move into the building.

As a result, our art, wood shop, science rooms, and library will all be in one facility together, which we'll be referring to as the "Design Center" for Lower School. These adjacencies will allow students to more easily engage in interdisciplinary projects that incorporate classroom learning, science, and art/design. Very exciting!

7th Grade Plantastic Voyage!

As mentioned in the post about our faculty visit to the Lighthouse Creativity Lab, one of the newly redesigned lessons that emerged from our visit belonged to a science teacher in our Middle School. Sergina Bach was able to fully redesign a traditional lesson about photosynthesis into a comprehensive design thinking experience - and when she returned, her entire 7th grade science team enthusiastically adopted the project across all 7th grade science classes.

The project was called "The Plantastic Voyage" and it was created to apply student learning about photosynthesis and plants by having them create a means to transport and grow plants during a mission to Mars, as well as creating a way to establish the plants once on Mars. Sergina took this project, integrated her new learning about Tinkercad, iterative thinking, and student-centered design processes, and set students off on an engaging and fun design thinking project.

Sergina and her colleagues bravely ventured into the world of Tinkercad - a first for our School. Tinkercad is a free software program that allows for 3d drafting using simple tools. It is very intuitive, generally speaking, and the students appeared to like working with the program. While we did not have the ability to 3d print student products prior to the final presentations, we discovered that the students enjoyed the digital drafting process enormously, and we saw them iterate their designs from words to basic drawings to 3d renderings, each time with improvements to the design. This project definitely highlighted that 3d printers would be something that would greatly enhance design thinking projects, and so we will be discussing ways to integrate these on both of our campuses.

On the left, a student's hand-drawn iteration. On the right, their vision realized in TinkerCad.

During the student work time on this project, I was able to visit all classrooms and personally experience the students' enthusiasm and excitement as they imagined, designed, and created their solutions. One one memorable visit, I was treated to having students give me a practice run of their project presentations, after which they asked for feedback. Not only was it great to see their enthusiasm in their presentations, I was surprised when they so openly asked for critique of their work, and more surprised when they thoughtfully considered the feedback given. In another class, I was treated to a student volunteering to get feedback from the full class on their prototype presentation. The reason I was surprised by all of these things is that my observations denote a turning point in terms of student process of creation in their projects - not so long ago students would have finished their project and been... done. Now, they approach their work as more iterative process, and before being finished, they test out their work and seek feedback.

Students loved the ability to create CAD models and also prototype models for this project!

In a couple of cases, we were able to 3d render the student's thinking. Here's a 3d print of a student's concept for a plant incubator that would keep plants alive on the space ship and on Mars too:

Faculty Visit to Lighthouse Creativity Lab

In the latter part of January, a group of 11 Parker faculty visited the Lighthouse Charter School, which is located in Oakland, California. We had participants from all three divisions on the trip. Why? Well, Lighthouse not only has a really fantastic and fully outfitted "maker space" (this is essentially another name for a design lab - both of them are spaces that allow students and faculty to produce both rapid prototypes as well as finished products), Lighthouse also provides specialized instruction to visiting teachers about how to best engage design thinking in their instruction. We were very fortunate to not only have Aaron Vanderwerff, the director for the Creativity Lab, as our guide - we also were joined by Angi Chau, who runs the Bourn Idea Lab at Castilleja School. Our consultant, Parker Thomas, also came each day to assist us.

View of the Creativity Lab space @ Lighthouse

We were all impressed by the "wall of stuff" in the room!

One purpose of our visit was to allow these 11 faculty to receive hands on experience using many of the tools that are used in a maker space or design lab, including 3D printers, computers with CAD design and basic programming software, laser cutters, and other "tools of the trade." Over the course of two days this group of faculty went from having zero knowledge or experience about these things to producing finished products that related to potential projects they would later use with students. The majority of faculty in our group had never been exposed to these technologies, and so having the opportunity to receive an introduction and guided practice on these various technologies was enormously beneficial. We had English, history, and foreign language teachers learn, use, and develop lesson ideas that integrated these technologies to improve a lesson they'd previously used in the classroom. Meanwhile, our science, technology and math teachers learned some new approaches to integrating technology into their lessons, as well as learning some new technology as well.

However, the main purpose was for our faculty to be exposed to the nuances and various iterations of design thinking - which includes elements of engineering design, art design (creative process), the philosophy of making, and also studying complexities in systems. As a result of their learning on these topics, each faculty member would then engage in crafting a lesson or series of lessons that featured design thinking (and perhaps some of the new technologies) to take back to their students at Parker. This work was the main focus of our time and energy.

Our first activity was to examine the parts, purposes, and complexities of an object in small groups. This served as a focusing activity wherein we took an ordinary object and examined it very, very closely. We were encouraged to take the object apart to truly examine the many facets of its composition. My group had a remote control from an older TV. On the surface level. we understood the remote and its purpose. But opening it up to see the chip, wiring, LED light and circuit board that made the entire thing work brought an entirely new level of understanding about the complexity of a relatively simple device. All groups undertook this close examination - and yet the way each group went about that task was fascinatingly different.

The net result was that we had a greater understanding around the first two steps of our design thinking process: Notice and Focus. We also discovered that an activity such as this is a really great orienting tool for student examination of a variety of things ranging from literature to the scientific method.

We then engaged in an extended discussion about the word "design" and what it meant. We obtained new perspective regarding the intersection of design thinking with teaching and learning. Angi and Aaron shared their respective journeys in founding their design labs, including the victories and challenges that they encountered. While some significant learning outcomes have been observed and experienced, they both shared that the work was ongoing and evolving - and that they did not forecast a close to the iterating process of the design lab. It was fascinating to hear how different each school's design lab journey was. They have both cultivated a culture of design thinking in their schools, but it looks and feels very different in each location.

It was also interesting to hear just how long it's taken them to get to where they are. Both schools were well over five years into developing a design thinking program in their school, and they were still hard at work to establish it throughout their curriculum. This opened up a lot of questions from Parker faculty in terms of what worked, what didn't, and how to continue making progress at a tempo that felt natural. The learning we took away was that there is no one right way to engage in design thinking - and that for us to be successful, we need to find our unique Parker approach and continually refine it over time moving forward.

As briefly mentioned above, our groups also delved into the use of new software and hardware as part of delivering a design thinking curriculum. Our group particularly enjoyed its experience with TinkerCad and then 3D printing items. As we were all beginners, we began with a relatively easy object: a "Mickey Mouse" ring. Great fun and a lot of insight from our hands-on experiences with this. As a result, we have a host of faculty eager to try these things out with their teams moving forward.

Using TinkerCad to design the ring/object.

The 3D printer gets to work!

The finished "Mickey Mouse" ring - a success!

The faculty worked extraordinarily hard and really pushed their thinking in terms of not just design thinking, but engineering design and the application of coding/programming into all facets of the curriculum. Due to our small size, each faculty member received generous amounts of one-on-one time with all of our facilitators. At the end of the second day, we spent time having all faculty present their lessons to one another using a structured feedback protocol. As a result, what were already solid lessons became even more creative and meaningful. In the next post, you'll see one of the lessons that was re-imagined in the Creativity Lab brought to life!

Sharing an English lesson involving Design Thinking

Sharing an integrated math/science lesson.

Sharing a re-vamp of a MS science lesson.

Special thanks to Angi Chau, Aaron Vanderwerff, and Parker Thomas for providing us with a chock-full two days of incredible learning and discourse, not to mention great humor and delicious meals!

4th Grade Redesign of the Culminating Project on CA Missions

Our 4th grade students have typically studied the role and history of missions as part of their larger examination of California State History. 

The culminating project for the curricular unit on Missions used to be a PBL (problem based learning) type lesson. Students would learn about a specific California mission, as well as learn about the general mission system in California. Last year, the teaching team decided to try a project form another school that was entitled "The 22nd Mission Project". After students learned about the 21 California missions that had existed, they made a 22nd mission based on meeting a need that might have surfaced in the historical era of missions. This meant that the problem and solution were both set in the past. It was a creative group project and students built a physical model, however, the net result was not very different from what they had learned about and creativity was ultimately fairly limited.

With the introduction of design thinking into the School, the 4th grade teachers realized that there was a chance to try something new. In consultancy with Parker Thomas, the project took a turn to the modern era. Rather than creating a mission for "back in the day," students would create a mission for modern day San Diego - one that would meet a community need and serve the community as it is today. As such, the project question (design challenge) became: "How might we create a mission program in the modern day to improve our community or world?"  

Here is a brief outline of how the project played out in our 4th grade classrooms this year: 

Notice and Focus: Students had post its and they began writing ideas of what organization they'd create to help others. The teachers started by having students put ideas on post its at their tables... and they ended up with a slew of post-its and lots of great ideas. After individuals brainstormed, groups of four kids began to sort and organize the ideas. Based on the student-group organized stickies, the teacher created some over-arching categories. Kids then took the stickies and grouped the stickies into the over-arching categories as a full class. Once all ideas were grouped off, the class narrowed down all of the options to 7 different ideas. These "big ideas" with associated sticky notes were then posted up in stations around the room. 

During the presentation, a group shares the origin of their idea on their display: the post it note where a student indicated their interest in creating a wildlife preserve for all species. 

Brainstorm, Design Create: The teacher then asked kids what they were passionate about and what they wanted to focus on in the design and create phases. Students were instructed to go sit under the poster that named the over-arching topic that was most interesting to them. Students began to talk with others who had migrated to the same area of the classroom and who wanted to focus on the same topic. The teachers noted that a very positive side effect was that kids didn't just follow their friends - they went where they were genuinely interested. The teachers encouraged kids to explore other groups if they weren't sure where they would fit or if they weren't quite sure which idea was the most interesting. Some students moved around a lot, while others stayed in their first choice. A second positive side effect was that kids began generating ideas collectively on their own without prompting. In one notable example, where students were going to create a free access high tech gym, the kids discovered that they were of very different backgrounds and yet somehow they found a way to really make it work. One kid stepped up to be the trainer, one the nutritionist, and the student who was very tech-focused ended up as the designer of the equipment. The kids self made those roles and group placements on their own. It was incredible to watch unfold! 

The teachers gave students several questions to consider in the design and create phases, including:  What does org look like? What is it's purpose or vision? Who will do what in your group? Who do you need to make it run? Students were to identify roles needed, not specific people who they thought should do work in their organization. General outlines and ideas were given to students, and in return students began fleshing out those ideas in detail. Teachers monitored student progress by having students hand in work daily - this was done in traditional written logs/journals as well as using iPads in the "documentation" process. 

Test: The test phase was for groups to first present their work informally to the class and all groups got feedback in this presentation. The class also asked questions of the group which further refined and fleshed out each group's thinking. It also led to a list of tasks for each group to complete in the refinement of their thinking process. The teacher had to train the class that it is absolutely a-ok to not have all the answers at this phase. :) Then, after students revamped their presentations and information, 5th graders, the principal, assistant principal, and assistant head of school came in to view the presentations and provide feedback. The groups took questions about their concepts and provided clarifications as needed. While it would have been nice for kids to once again go through a refinement process, the honest truth is that after the more formal second test presentation, students didn't make substantive changes to their program or mission idea. This might be because they didn't know how or what to do. It might be because the questions asked didn't point enough to specific areas of improvement. Budget type items are very complex and 4th grade knowledge is limited - they don't even understand the concept that taxes fund many different things. The teaching team has determined that it might be helpful to first teach where money comes from, or at least provide some basic economics understandings first.  Another thought the team had was to put another unit of study, the business unit, earlier in the year and then have this new missions project come later in the year. 

Students present their ideas to an audience and obtain feedback.

Another student group presents their modern day mission.

Reflection component: The teacher wrote questions for students to answer to reflect on their work, including: What did you learn, what was your favorite part of the project, what was your least favorite? Should 4th grade use this project again? Kids were very enthusiastic in their responses, with a vast majority stating that the project should definitely be done again for future 4th graders. Also as part of the reflection component, students were asked to reflect on their contribution to the group - what did they do, what could they do better, what did they like about what they did. This was all done in writing. This feedback set up some good conversation about each student's role and contribution.

Share: There was no formalized "share" step and there was not an exhibition night, but there were artifacts produced by the kids that were photographed and captured via video,  and those artifacts were posted up for parents to see, review and discuss with their students. 

All in all, the teaching team felt very enthusiastic about the redesign of this project, and students were highly engaged at all steps of the process. Next year will see continued refinement and hopefully additional design oriented projects for students to tackle! 

Upper School Design Thinking

In November and December, many Upper School students received some exposure to design thinking through three different activities.

Community Service: How Might We Re-Envision Community Service at Parker?

Parker has a well established community service program within its Upper School, wherein all students have a requirement to attain hours each year in service to the community. As part of our work on the strategic plan, the call was made to do some reflecting and possibly re-look at components of how our community service program is set up at the school. I partnered with our Upper School principal, ASB advisor, and our Director for community service to involve our students in this process.

In November and December, we facilitated a design thinking process with our community service board and our ASB student leadership group. The design challenge was: How might we design a four year community service program that provides a meaningful experience for all Parker students?

The students dove into the work wholeheartedly, and they produced some very creative and inspired thinking about how the program might be re-envisioned. While some suggestions are outside the bounds of feasibility, there were many kernels of ideas that might form part of a newly envisioned program for students. Students creatively built four-year programs with sequential and logical components, and even looked at how to expand the program to attain more interest from students.

For this particular process, we limited the "notice" component to having the students analyze what was work and what was not working with the current program - this way they had a foundation from which to work when they engaged in the brainstorming component. In all, these sessions were very productive and students were highly engaged in the conversations. When students found out that their input would be used in our larger process, they were keen to continue their involvement as we moved down the path of re-examining community service.

The most broad exposure came via a two-part design thinking exercise that was undertaken in the newly formed "House" groups. Our Upper School students are divided into smaller groups with a faculty advisor (or advisors). There are also two students in each House who serve as House Leaders. We have our Asst Head of Upper School and one of our Deans guide the House program, and they came to me earlier in the year to ask if we might consider using a couple of House sessions to introduce the concept of design thinking to students. Their thinking was that the House Leaders and advisors would meet with me, and we would walk through the steps of the process. After that, the house leaders and advisors would then deliver the same experience to their respective groups.

To keep things within our limited time and scope, we engaged in an activity that was perhaps less realistic but which would engender greater interest from the students. The design challenge: How might we create the ultimate student center at Parker?

While engagement from the House Leaders was high during both of the initial sessions, feedback and observations from the broader implementation demonstrated that the challenge was perhaps a bit too "out there" in terms of feasibility, which led to reduced buy in from the greater student body. While it was great to have the venue to at least gain some traction with the process with our students, some re-thinking about how to expose students to this manner of thinking will need to happen. From conversations with students, it appears that they would prefer a smaller team setting and a more realistic opportunity to apply the process. Since the design thinking seminars with our ASB and community service board groups went very well, it looks like these more targeted or focused opportunities present a better mechanism to help students learn at the Upper School.

If you are interested in more details about the processes and/or feedback, feel free to contact me. I don't know of an organization that ever hits 100% success when implementing new things - and so we are continuing to learn how to implement as we go. If our learning can help your process move better, we're happy to be of help.

Consultation Sessions with Parker Thomas for Faculty Members

We brought Parker Thomas back on site for two days in early December. The purpose of his time on our two campuses was two-fold. One, for him to have the opportunity to review some of the early efforts of our faculty to implement design thinking and provide some feedback. Two, and more important, he was to meet up with teaching teams to talk about potential lessons or ideas on how to integrate design thinking into their classes.

At the Lower School, the faculty eagerly signed up for sessions with Parker - in fact, we had to add time to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to meet with him. Feedback following the visit demonstrated that he was extremely helpful to all of the teams. Teams brought in lesson ideas and collaboratively worked through the process of how design thinking might be applied in the lesson. Following each session, teaching teams walked away with concrete possibilities and a pathway by which to implement the lessons. Given that this year is a "learning together" year for faculty, it was commendable that the Lower School faculty so eagerly pushed to move forward with implementation. In talking with teams after Parker's visit, they are eager to have him back and talk about other lessons that might involve design thinking.

A few Middle and Upper School faculty also met with Parker during his visit. The individuals with whom he consulted reported back that their time with him was immensely helpful and also opened their ideas to potential with design thinking in their area, while teaching teams felt the time was a bit difficult as they did not focus on a particular unit or lesson in the conversation. We will be bringing Parker back to meet with our Lower School teams again as we got a universal request from that division for more consultative time. We will open up time with Parker for those who wish to "opt in" from the other divisions if they wish to do so. Feedback from all divisions will be solicited during an upcoming steering committee session so that we are sure to meet the learning needs of all divisions as we move into the spring months.

Sink The Ship!

It is always challenging to maintain student interest and engagement when a holiday break is just around the corner. Fortunately, for one of our math classes, a creative teacher provided some meaningful instruction and a whole lot of fun for their students while integrating elements of design thinking.

The lesson? Learning coordinates and plotting them accurately on a graph. But rather than dry lecture, student learned this concept by laying out a real-life battleship type coordinate field on either side of a barrier, and then put down home-made cardboard ships onto the coordinate fields. In order to win, students had to figure out the location of the opponents' Flag Ship, record the coordinates properly in graph format on the board, and do so prior to their opponents sinking THEIR flag ship.

Students had to do all of the work in terms of figuring out how to plan their coordinate field, coordinate their attack plans, and successfully track their thinking on the board and on their grid. The teacher acted as consultant - and in that role, he responded to questions mostly with questions back to the students. The teams were encouraged to partner up and work together to problem solve.

A very fun day of learning. The best part? After talking about playing in 2 dimensions, students were then tasked to create a new variant of the game that would operate in 3 dimensions - this will be their work in the coming weeks. Once they hash out the details, the game will be played outdoors on a large scale grid.

I wish I had learned about planes and coordinates this way! The students were highly engaged, having fun, and best of all, it was clear that there was learning permanence resulting from learning by doing.

Students re-set the grid after the first round of play.

Students collaboratively problem-solve how to best protect their ships while attacking their opponent by using their new knowledge about coordinates and planes.

Lower School Moves Full STEAM Ahead with Design Thinking

Our Lower School continues its work to integrate design thinking into every grade level. Here are a few wonderful examples of how this has been looking around the Mission Hills campus:

Junior Kindergarten (Pre-School)
Students were given PVC tubes and connector pieces and challenged to make a free-standing tower. Aside from the stated challenge, it was 100% up to the students to collaboratively figure out how to make the tower work and stand on its own. It took a few tries, but students ultimately figured out how to make the towers stand by creating a wider base to support the structure. The engagement of kids on this task and their collaborative spirit were truly wonderful to see!

Second grade
Meanwhile, our 2nd grade art students engaged in a design challenge wherein they were tasked to use a specific artist's style to craft an "adopt-a-pet" poster to be displayed at a local animal shelter. The students took the task to heart, and the result were some fun posters. Even better? Our local shelter is currently displaying several of our students' finished products.

First grade

Our first graders read the first part of a story about Queen Victoria's Bathing Machine wherein they were introduced to the problem: Queen Victoria wanted to go swimming, but to do so privately. They collectively brainstormed their own solutions to the question before reading on to find out what really happened. 

Fifth grade

Our fifth graders had a "survival challenge" that took many discrete learning elements that ranged from chemistry to physics to environmental science and integrated them into one over-arching project. Students were tasked with creating shelters that could meet several criteria, including fitting a certain number of individuals, withstanding natural forces, and using only a set amount and type of resources. Students took flight with some active brainstorming, designing and creating. Their final habitats/shelters were then tested with "real life" scenarios. The photo below shows a shelter being tested for its durability in wind, which was simulated with a leaf blower. 

MS Science: Environmental Impact Study Using Design Thinking

Sergina Bach's middle school science students recently applied design thinking to their work in creating environmental impact statements for a hypothetical building project to be completed on our Linda Vista campus site. 

The teacher provided a very open ended project design that allowed students to create their own learning process and outcomes. It also encouraged a lot of creative thinking on both sides of the issue, e.g., it made the students take the side of being in favor of construction AND take the side of not being in favor of construction.

The resulting  environmental impact studies came back and the teacher was happy to see a high level of detail and an even higher level of thinking that went on with the work from the students. They had taken the project and run with it... and they came back with some highly creative ideas that would both meet the construction needs for the campus while also strongly considering the environmental sustainability of the area involved. 

Here is one of the projects that came back: 

Environmental impact study for  Pool and Parking lot

By A S,  A V , and A I

          We believe that Francis Parker needs more parking and a swimming pool. A parking lot is extremely necessary for big events such as homecoming, arts night, and back to school night when so many people are there and the majority have to park far away or we have to use the parking of other buildings. The parking lot would help solve this problem and also help bring more students to this school since they have the relief of knowing that they won't be late due to parking.

The pool would provide a variety of sports including a swim team (which we do have but the pool being there would be so much more convenient for them), a water polo team, and many other things. It would also be nice to have a pool, so you can go there for recreational uses, educational uses and maybe even the occasional party. We could also charge the public money to use our pool. Extending our parking lot and building a pool on campus would be great for our school.

Alternatives

One option for building a new parking lot would be expanding our faculty parking lot into the chaparral. This would be beneficial because that way the students could use the faculty lot and the staff still have places to park. We decided that the parking lot would be best if put here because we can use our space, and still leave most of the chaparral untouched. With this new addition to the parking lot we could fit more cars so more people could have places to park.

Another option is to put the parking lot in the back near the path to the chaparral and connect it to the road where the buses are. This would be beneficial because it would be out of the way and it would be big enough to fit a large amount of people.

A third alternative is that we could build more parking on top of the existing student lot. It should be two stories so it can fit more people. This way we could make more parking without effecting the chaparral. However, this option would be very expensive.

We also thought that we should put the pool in the space behind the library. Currently, this space is open, and is a perfect spot for the pool and a small building next to it for equipment and changing. It would be close to other structures, and because of this, wouldn’t affect the chaparral as much as it would if we built our pool deeper into the chaparral. The minimum harm to the chaparral would come if we built our pool here. Also, if we put it here it would be close to the upper school and middle school which would be ideal.

A second option is that we put the pool next the the field house and cafeteria area. This wouldn't affect the chaparral at all. However, it would be far from the upper school making it difficult to get there when the need to, and will be right in the middle of our school, making it inconvenient.

A final alternative would be to build the pool off of the path that leads us to the chaparral. Here, it will also be out of the way  and easily accessible to the middle and upper school.

Location and Design

We think that the best option of where to build our pool would probably be behind the library. This is helpful to the environment because it is close to other buildings and is at the beginning of the chaparral. Here, the least number of organisms will be harmed, and it is also convenient for us. Having the pool behind the library will keep it out of the way of all our school buildings, but will also be close by to both the middle and the high school. We were thinking to build a small building next to the pool to keep pool equipment and to change, as the only inconvenience would be that the gym is a not very close to the pool. We want to be innovative with our pool design, something that no other school has seen before - a two story indoor pool.

The first floor of our pool will be big, and will have a deep end and a shallow end. Our second floor, however will only have a 4 ft deep pool. This will be useful for people who want to practice tricks like handstands and flip turns and need to use a shallow end. This pool will be smaller, and more to play around in. The first floor pool will be for swim team practice, and lap swimming and diving.

On the second floor, there will also be a hole in the ground (with a small fence around it) for people to jump into the deep end of the first pool. These two pools are above each other in a glass poorhouse building. A glass building (except for the first floor ceiling)  will let in light, so we wouldn't have to pay too much for electricity. The second floor's ceiling will be glass. Again, this would let in light, and would be great if we could arrange an activity to go swimming at night (we could look up at the stars while swimming).

On the roof, we would have a small jacuzzi. Next to the pool house we plan to include a ramp to an equipment building. The only problem about this location is that it isn't close to the gym and the locker rooms. To solve this problem, we have decided to include a equipment building which will be used as a place to change and as a place to store all of the equipment (pool noodles, floats, etc).

We could also charge the public money to come use our pool. This would be great, because it would make up for the amount of money it took to build the pool, and we could use some of the money to plant more trees and bushes to make up for the ones we had to cut down and clear. Our pool will be easily accessible to the public, because it will be out of the way of the rest of our school buildings. The latitude of the pool is approximately 32.76999137, and the longitude is -117.17730984.

Our parking lot will be built right next to the already existing parking lot. Building it here would be great because it's close to other buildings and won't affect organisms and the chaparral very much. This could be used as a teachers and staff parking lot, and now both the students who drive themselves to school and the teachers would have places to park. As an advisory activity, each advisory could spray paint a part of the new parking lot to make it colorful and unique. Maybe we could spray paint the center of it with our school name and logo. The latitude of the parking lot is approximately 32.77052083, and the longitude is -117.17864022.

Below is a link to a video summarizing our pool design:

https://tellagami.com/gami/23XNF8/

Below is a video summarizing our parking lot design:

https://tellagami.com/gami/HVH6B5/

The four figures below show four different views showing the location of the pool and parking lot. The actual design of the pool and parking lot were described in the “Location and Design” section above.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

           There are lots of biotic factors that will be affected by the project. Some of the animals in the proposed building areas are california towhees, spotted towhees, western scrub jays, California Thrasher, wrentit(all omnivores), bats, bobcats, coyotes(scavengers). There are even Virginia opossums(scavengers), gray foxes, gopher snakes, bushtits, mountain lions(carnivores), and big eared wood rats(herbivore). Brush rabbits, bezoar goats, red tailed hawk, black tailed jack rabbit, and cactus wren(consumers). The plants in the proposed areas are big berry manzanita, scrub oak, chamise, ceanothus, and mountain mahogany. There are so many more organisms that live in the proposed area.

Picture 1: An  energy pyramid  showing some of the animals in our chaparral  and showing the energy decrease between each level of the pyramid.

Picture 2: A food chain showing some of the animals in our chaparrel.

A food web showing some of the organisms living in the Francis Parker chaparral

Building a parking lot or pool on our chaparral would definitely affect the organisms living there. Looking at the food chain above, you will see that each organism is dependent on another (except for the producer and the sun). If, for example, the big eared wood rats get wiped out from that area, the gray fox won't have anything to eat. The gray foxes of the area may migrate, start eating things other than their natural diet, which might become unhealthy, or die out because of lack of food. The hawks would face the same situation as the the foxes. They would find no foxes to eat, and even if they do, the hawks might get sick or have trouble reproducing because the foxes ate something that is not part of their natural diet. Removing such a small, seemingly unimportant woodrat wouldn't seem like a big deal to other organisms. But really, removing them would cause a big ripple effect, and in the end, wipe out other much bigger organisms like hawks and foxes. In the same way, even removing a small part of the organisms in the chaparral would create a big effect to the rest of the organisms.

But, on the other hand, the situation described above would only happen if one type of organisms' population drastically decreased or if the organism got wiped out. We are going to build our pool and parking lot in a small part of the vast chaparral. This wouldn't just decrease the population of one organism, it would decrease the population of most of the organisms in the area. Let us give you an example: If 100 rabbits, 50 snakes, 2000 plants and bushes lived in the chaparral, and 30 hawks circled overhead, they would be scattered throughout the chaparral. If we were to build on a small part of it, maybe 10% of the chaparral would go. In this case, the population of each type of organism would approximately decrease by 10%. Now there would be 90 rabbits, 45 snakes, 1800 plants and bushes, and 27 hawks. There wouldn't be a change in the food chain or the energy pyramid, because no organism suffered very much more than the rest. Now there are less organisms, but they will still grow at the same rate they did before. Of course, the chaparral will be affected by the building, but in the end, the food chains, growth patterns, and energy flow wouldn't be changed very drastically.

If we build these parking lots and pool in the chaparral area then the animals would have to leave the area. If there aren't any animals or healthy animals then the other animals wouldn’t get the food they need. If the animals don't get food then they don't get energy and they would all have to move out. Without the animals to eat the chaparral it would keep on growing and would eventually have to get cut back as to not interfere with the parking lot and pool.

But, as stated above, this would only happen if one species was wiped out from our chaparrel or it's population was dramatically decreased. But if we only cut away a little part of the chaparral, the same percent of population decrease would happen to all the other organisms. This way, the energy transfer and flow between organisms wouldn't be changed very much, and neither would all the food webs, and the overall growth of the ecosystem.

This is why we decided to build the parking lot and pool in areas where the animals would still be able to live a peaceful life in their chaparral habitat. If we were to build the parking lot and pool in the chaparral area then the animals would move or die out.

The affected environment would be behind the library which would affect any existing or social settings but venture a little bit into the environment. The main thing that would be affected is the plants and possibly small animals. We would try to avoid this by checking the area first and making sure this is a safe area to place a pool.

But it is not just the biotic factors of the chaparrel that will be affected. Abiotic factors will also be affected because of this project. When we clear the area of trees and bushes, water will have no place to absorb. Because of this, it will keep flowing, and it will take the soil with it. This will cause soil erosion. As stated below, one of the ways we could mitigate this is to plant more shrubs and trees that are native to the chaparral, especially on the slope. This will help prevent water run offs, which in turn will reduce the soil erosion in our chaparrel.

Another abiotic factor is the water. San Diego is in a big drought. Building a pool might take away the water we could have been giving to our chaparrel. Our solution for this problem is to use the water from cleaning the pool to water the chaparrel. Instead of having a chlorine pool that  would hurt the environment, we plan to have a saltwater pool. Doing this will also mitigate the impacts our project will have on the environment.

An impact of building a pool and a parking lot in the proposed area is that it will hurt the chaparrel. There are many animals and plants that live here (explained in more detail above). But we have tried to find a solution so that it doesn't harm the chaparrel as much. First of all, both the parking lot and pool will be built close to other structures, and not deep into the chaparrel. This is the area that is least inhabited by animals. We will also try to use the money we get from the pool (from charging the public to use it) to plant more trees and bushes. Hopefully, animals that we harmed will start living here. In this way, we will be making up all of the harm we did to the chaparrel. With the plants planted we could attract more animals to repopulate, and construct our pool and parking lot without destroying the ecosystem.

We could also mitigate the impact our project has on the chaparral is to help it grow better. We could do this by introducing microorganisms to our chaparrel. These include bacteria and fungi. This will help the chaparral grow better, by making it easier for the chaparrel to adapt to sudden abiotic changes.

A picture of an abiotic factor in the chaparral - fog

Another picture of an abiotic factor in the chaparral - drought

Should we build?

Deciding whether to build or not to build on our chaparral was a hard decision for us to make. On one hand, our chaparral is an important part of our wildlife and ecosystems and we shouldn't build on it and harm all of the organisms, but on the other hand parking lot and a pool would be a great and useful addition to our school. We have expressed our opinions in two paragraphs below. In the last paragraph, we have decided on one option - to build a pool, but not a parking lot.

Not Build

After collecting all the information, we believe that building a parking lot and swimming pool might not be a good idea. We have proof that there are living organisms in the chaparral at our school. We have seen the plants and some have actually seen a small creature such as a fox. I agree that there is lots of space but if we get rid of one area, however small, it will still harm a living thing. There are a variety of species in this chapparal that we haven't really observed yet and this could affect them whether it is where they live or perhaps a hotspot for their prey. There should always be a balance, whether it be with economics and the environment and something like this. There should be times when we do something such as build something new and a time when we should protect this environment. I understand that but we also need to first take note on what we are actually building on. There have been sightings in that chapparal of holes which could be home to small rodents, a snake, or even a burrowing owl. This land has been theirs for a long time and to build over it would be a bad idea.

Build

On the other hand, our evidence also proves that we have a lot of chaparral that is owned by Francis Parker. We could use a small part of it to build a pool for our school. We think that maybe a parking lot is not necessary, because though parking is an issue in our school property, there is a parking lot across the street. People could park there. Although some people say that this takes too long and the kids will be late for class, this issue has nothing to do with the parking. If the people know they have to park across the street, they should know to come a little earlier. A pool would be fun, but also helpful to our school. One reason is that it will be a lot more convenient for our swim team, it would save them time and money for them to use a pool that is on campus. Another good reason to build a pool is that, though our pool design may be a little expensive, but it is unique and we could get money from the public to come use it. With this money, we could plant more trees and bushes to make up for the ones we had to clear. This way, we will have a good balance between our school's development needs and the environmental needs of the chaparral.  

Final Decision

Looking at both options here, we think that it would be useful to build a pool in our chaparral area. As stated above, yes some harm will come to our wonderful chaparral, but we believe we have found a balance between the environmental needs of our chaparral and our school’s development needs. As written above, we have come up with many ways to mitigate the impact our pool will have on the chaparrel. This way, we will be doing the best we can to make up for the chaparral wildlife we had to clear. We believe building a pool on our chaparrel is the best option.

Upper School "House Groups" Experience Design Thinking!

Our Upper School unveiled a new "House System" this year, which would provide time for students to meet in small groups with advisors on a regular basis. The Houses have allowed for students to engage in important conversations and discussions, discuss school business, and also experience new concepts... like design thinking.

In early November, student house leaders were given an overview of design thinking and then they engaged in a "learning by doing" exercise where they were facilitated through the exact process that they would lead their peers through. In essence, house leaders would help their peers tackle a specific design challenge using the design thinking process.

The Challenge? Create the ultimate student life center. Due to time constraints, we broke the experience into two segments. In November, students would work on noticing, focusing, and brainstorming, while they would move into designing, creating, and testing in December.

House leaders think about the ultimate student life center

The house leaders readily stepped up to the challenge. During their instruction session, the leaders were engaged and willing participants. During the lesson day itself, I walked around and found that while many house groups may have adapted the flow of the steps, all students were engaging in creative brainstorming about what they have noticed about popular "hangout" locations at Parker, what they felt a student life center should have in it, and what they liked about other hangout locations at home or out in the community. The brainstorming was incredibly invigorating to witness and some of the ideas were really, really fun.

Students post up their big ideas from their brainstorming

December will bring the houses into the designing and creating phase - I can hardly wait to see what they come up with!

Windows of sticky notes result from the brainstorming