A Model For Educational Facilities Planning
Part I
Parts of this blog are used by permission from the book by C. K. Tanner and J. A. Lackney entitled Educational Facilities Planning (2006), published by Longman. Ken Tanner – June 2011
This blog is designed for educational facility planners and architects that build schools, educational leaders, and all other individuals that are involved and interested in educational facilities planning, design, construction, and management. I begin by postulating that there is a gap in conceptualization of educational learning environments between educational leaders and architects. It is my intention to minimize this gap by presenting and discussing trends in educational architecture, first, followed by an integration of principles of planning and architecture. There is more literature addressing educational planning than educational architecture that is available to the clients of educational facilities planning and architecture. Furthermore, because the clients of educational architecture are always experiencing change, I intended to describe and explain methods and procedures to improve relationships in this vital community.
Basic Assumptions: You have read the blog entitled “Principles for Planning and Designing Schools” here on the ACEF Blog. Educational facility planners are not architects, neither are architects educational facility planners. Rarely can an architect, and sometimes even educators “take on” all of the knowledge needed for curriculum planning, educational programming, developing explanations of how the physical environment influences the teacher and student, and every one of the necessary elements that make education a separate and viable industry. To be an educational facility planner one must first be an educator with some battle scars and educational experience, experience in the political culture of education and all the ups and downs of dealing with students, parents and the community. He or she must know about leaders such as Henry Barnard (lawyer and educator) and John Dewey (psychologist and educator) and how they designed schools.
I suggest that by knowing a bit about the history of educational architecture all people involved in the exciting process of developing educational learning environments will have a better foundation for the context of activities necessary to complete the process. Once the context is explored, we suggest that people involved in educational facilities planning well benefit from our review of Jeff Lackney’s general design principles that guide the early stages of planning.
Encouraging good school architecture is one of the most significant contributions we make to society. The architecture of educational facilities is a community policy statement on the importance of education and students, and the quality of school architecture reveals the culture of the people who plan, design and build the school. School facilities should reflect sound teaching and learning philosophies, but this may not always be the case in some school districts. Although some people may argue that the physical quality and educational compatibility of school facilities in communities are tied directly to monetary wealth of each district, it is not difficult to find poor physical quality and design in affluent school districts, while good schools may also be found in districts having less wealth.
One of my graduate students, in class, asked me this question: What should the quality of the school be in a small town or rural community? My quick answer to this fine young southern gentleman was: The school facility should be equal in quality to the nearest First Baptist Church (or whatever church is the most popular in your area). The church is an item of pride. The school house should also be an item of community pride..
In an ideal world, planning and designing educational learning environments require the participation of people representing the school and community, with state representatives playing the role of regulators according to published minimum standards. With a team planning effort a new school facility or a renovated structure can be a relevant place for learning, housing spaces that actually “facilitate” the school curriculum. Without a team effort the resulting school architecture may represent the wishes of only a few individuals.
Such spaces will often represent the values and beliefs of public officials elected or appointed for short, incremental periods of time. Yet, the school facility is expected to serve the community for 50 or more years. Often, there are stakeholders in key decision-making roles that may be led to the building of schools having low quality construction, in the shortest time possible, and at the lowest bid. Occasionally, these stakeholders do not envision the critical importance of value engineering, the curriculum compatibility of the school, the design, or construction quality – all strategies that would provide the very outcome they seek. Decision makers need to understand that the schools they build now speak to the community long after the individuals who planned, designed, and built them are gone from public office. Schools are monuments to the our culture.
In an ideal world, planning and designing educational learning environments require the participation of people representing the school and community, with state representatives playing the role of regulators according to published minimum standards. With a team planning effort a new school facility or a renovated structure can be a relevant place for learning, housing spaces that actually “facilitate” the school curriculum. Without a team effort the resulting school architecture may represent the wishes of only a few individuals.
Such spaces will often represent the values and beliefs of public officials elected or appointed for short, incremental periods of time. Yet, the school facility is expected to serve the community for 50 or more years. Often, there are stakeholders in key decision-making roles that may be led to the building of schools having low quality construction, in the shortest time possible, and at the lowest bid. Occasionally, these stakeholders do not envision the critical importance of value engineering, the curriculum compatibility of the school, the design, or construction quality – all strategies that would provide the very outcome they seek. Decision makers need to understand that the schools they build now speak to the community long after the individuals who planned, designed, and built them are gone from public office. Schools are monuments to the our culture.
One purpose of this blog is to begin an outline for a framework for planning and design of a school, a plan that is validated through research, the literature, and the experiences of successful practitioners in the field. Another intention is to review highlights of the educational facility planning and design process as it has evolved over the past 50 years. My goal is to describe and explain a conceptual framework that that integrates the multiple perspectives of educational planners, designers, architects, and the public. The model I introduce here is expected to serve as a conceptual guide for connecting all the dots in the complex graph of educational facilities planning.
I envision a comprehensive model having a wide application to various school systems –large, small, rural, urban, or suburban. As in all situations pertaining to the complex process of developing and providing school facilities, finding resources and relevant information is the main concern. Therefore, one assumption for a comprehensive model is availability of relevant information and resources for planning and decision-making. Relevant information is not enough, however. The interpretation of the relevant information, in light of political and shared decision-making reality, becomes cumbersome, requiring a structure that encompasses social design theory – working with people rather than for them and involving them in critical, relevant aspects of the process.
With the available textual materials, including the suggested literature, and the Internet search engines, information on almost any planning topic may be easily retrieved (Warning: Be cautious about opinion not backed up with relevant literature and research). Sometimes Internet information is incomplete and too condensed to be of value, but as in condensed hard copy publications most web sites offer some useful information. The conceptual planning model that I recommend here will be effective if the correct data and information are collected, analyzed, interpreted, and properly utilized in the process. Proper utilization of information encompasses the perceptual, political, and leadership aspects applied to the process as well as the technical skills of the people involved. For example, will the governing board, the state, the architect, the planner, and the community understand the importance of learning activities involving various philosophies? Or, will only one philosophy dominate? Consider essentialism, for example. Historically, some school leaders may have been educated under the ‘blank tablet’ method - teachers lectured and students listened and responded through pencil and paper tests as measures of learning and accountability. If decision-makers favoring the essentialism philosophy or any other single philosophy dominates the decision process, then the community could be left with a school facility accommodating only one way of thinking for 50 years or more. Therefore, one important aspect of developing facilities is educating decision-makers regarding teaching and learning. The process of providing decision-making bodies with a balanced perspective requires strong leadership from the planning team and school leaders.
Since a primary concern for any model is its basis, we offer eight foundational premises for developing school facilities.
Premise 1. In providing physical learning environments we contend that strong leadership is essential. Furthermore, the importance of leaders knowing about the impact of school facilities on student behavior and learning is vital. It is significant that the leader should create an atmosphere where people within the organization can assist in the complex job of developing school facilities. Individuals in charge of developing, providing, and managing school facilities should be knowledgeable in the basic aspects of school facilities and also be able to communicate the goals of education and the nature of the relationship between the community and the school. They must have the ability to lead the school system toward its ideals. Those in leadership have inherent responsibilities to the public they serve. Exactly who takes the lead depends on precisely where the process is within the context of all activities necessary to design and build a school. For example the curriculum planner might not be the best person to lead a group on school funding. Leadership may be situational as the various tasks are addressed in the development process. However, it is usually the chief school officer who makes recommendations to the governing board, the final decision-making body.
Premise 2. The second premise is that the school system has a defined direction - a mission and a vision. We assume that the people in leadership have developed strategies to actualize this direction. The mission and vision must be clearly defined and understood by the school and community, especially when school development is on the agenda. Above all, direction must include basic concerns for school facilities planning and design – a vision for learning and teaching. Somehow, within the mission statement and master plan for school leadership we must see that educational facilities exist to contribute to the accomplishment of the mission. We must work to ensure the connections among student behavior and learning and the natural and built learning environments. Lack of this connection may represent a ‘black hole’ in our educational system.
Premise 3. School facilities are provided after long-range goals and objectives are established. Because schools may last a very long time, they should be seen as community resources and architecture. Therefore, long-range planning means searching for various possibilities in terms of program and economics – cost benefit analysis of all phases of a capital project need to be specified as a requirement in the long-range plan. Expected student enrollment and value engineering are examples of two important aspects in the decision-making process for future school building projects, helping to circumvent errors that reduce benefits to learning, and that minimize overall costs. But, long-range planning may be difficult to maintain in an atmosphere where school boards serve short terms, and chief school officers have ‘high turn over’ rates. It becomes the responsibility of the community to guarantee that long-range goals and objectives are monitored and revised as leadership changes occur.
We all know of sudden changes in direction of goals and possible reorganization when leadership at the top changes. These changes certainly influence the development of school facilities. When a new school superintendent is employed, we often hear about “reorganization and re-direction.” According to Townsend (1970), reorganizing should be undergone about as often as major surgery (p. 146). He exhorted the wisdom of Petronius Arbiter who stated, “I was to learn in life that we tend to meet each new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization” (p. 146).
I envision a comprehensive model having a wide application to various school systems –large, small, rural, urban, or suburban. As in all situations pertaining to the complex process of developing and providing school facilities, finding resources and relevant information is the main concern. Therefore, one assumption for a comprehensive model is availability of relevant information and resources for planning and decision-making. Relevant information is not enough, however. The interpretation of the relevant information, in light of political and shared decision-making reality, becomes cumbersome, requiring a structure that encompasses social design theory – working with people rather than for them and involving them in critical, relevant aspects of the process.
With the available textual materials, including the suggested literature, and the Internet search engines, information on almost any planning topic may be easily retrieved (Warning: Be cautious about opinion not backed up with relevant literature and research). Sometimes Internet information is incomplete and too condensed to be of value, but as in condensed hard copy publications most web sites offer some useful information. The conceptual planning model that I recommend here will be effective if the correct data and information are collected, analyzed, interpreted, and properly utilized in the process. Proper utilization of information encompasses the perceptual, political, and leadership aspects applied to the process as well as the technical skills of the people involved. For example, will the governing board, the state, the architect, the planner, and the community understand the importance of learning activities involving various philosophies? Or, will only one philosophy dominate? Consider essentialism, for example. Historically, some school leaders may have been educated under the ‘blank tablet’ method - teachers lectured and students listened and responded through pencil and paper tests as measures of learning and accountability. If decision-makers favoring the essentialism philosophy or any other single philosophy dominates the decision process, then the community could be left with a school facility accommodating only one way of thinking for 50 years or more. Therefore, one important aspect of developing facilities is educating decision-makers regarding teaching and learning. The process of providing decision-making bodies with a balanced perspective requires strong leadership from the planning team and school leaders.
Since a primary concern for any model is its basis, we offer eight foundational premises for developing school facilities.
Premise 1. In providing physical learning environments we contend that strong leadership is essential. Furthermore, the importance of leaders knowing about the impact of school facilities on student behavior and learning is vital. It is significant that the leader should create an atmosphere where people within the organization can assist in the complex job of developing school facilities. Individuals in charge of developing, providing, and managing school facilities should be knowledgeable in the basic aspects of school facilities and also be able to communicate the goals of education and the nature of the relationship between the community and the school. They must have the ability to lead the school system toward its ideals. Those in leadership have inherent responsibilities to the public they serve. Exactly who takes the lead depends on precisely where the process is within the context of all activities necessary to design and build a school. For example the curriculum planner might not be the best person to lead a group on school funding. Leadership may be situational as the various tasks are addressed in the development process. However, it is usually the chief school officer who makes recommendations to the governing board, the final decision-making body.
Premise 2. The second premise is that the school system has a defined direction - a mission and a vision. We assume that the people in leadership have developed strategies to actualize this direction. The mission and vision must be clearly defined and understood by the school and community, especially when school development is on the agenda. Above all, direction must include basic concerns for school facilities planning and design – a vision for learning and teaching. Somehow, within the mission statement and master plan for school leadership we must see that educational facilities exist to contribute to the accomplishment of the mission. We must work to ensure the connections among student behavior and learning and the natural and built learning environments. Lack of this connection may represent a ‘black hole’ in our educational system.
Premise 3. School facilities are provided after long-range goals and objectives are established. Because schools may last a very long time, they should be seen as community resources and architecture. Therefore, long-range planning means searching for various possibilities in terms of program and economics – cost benefit analysis of all phases of a capital project need to be specified as a requirement in the long-range plan. Expected student enrollment and value engineering are examples of two important aspects in the decision-making process for future school building projects, helping to circumvent errors that reduce benefits to learning, and that minimize overall costs. But, long-range planning may be difficult to maintain in an atmosphere where school boards serve short terms, and chief school officers have ‘high turn over’ rates. It becomes the responsibility of the community to guarantee that long-range goals and objectives are monitored and revised as leadership changes occur.
We all know of sudden changes in direction of goals and possible reorganization when leadership at the top changes. These changes certainly influence the development of school facilities. When a new school superintendent is employed, we often hear about “reorganization and re-direction.” According to Townsend (1970), reorganizing should be undergone about as often as major surgery (p. 146). He exhorted the wisdom of Petronius Arbiter who stated, “I was to learn in life that we tend to meet each new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization” (p. 146).
Here I hope to have established a foundation for the reader to think about some formal way of planning - better than "muddling through". In Part II other premises will be discussed. They need to find a home in a formal planning process that you decide is best for your situation.
References for the Model
Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Bingler, S. (1995). Place as a form of knowledge. In A. Meek (Ed.), Designing Places for Learning (pp. 23-30). Alexandra, VA: ASCD.
Carter, G. R., & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American School Superintendent: Leading in an Age of Pressure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publications.
Castaldi, B. (1994). Educational facilities: Planning, Modernizing, and Management (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cuban, L. (1988). The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Earthman, G. I. (2000). Collaborative planning for school facilities and comprehensive land use. Paper presented to the Stein & Schools Lecture Series: Policy, Planning, and Design for a 21st Century Public Education System, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Earthman, G. I. (2000), Planning Educational Facilities for the Next Century. Reston, VA: ASBO.
Englehardt, N. L., Englehardt, N. L. Jr., & Leggett, S. (1956). School Planning and Building Handbook. New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation.
Fielding, R. (1999). The Death of the Classroom: Learning Cycles and Roger Shank. [11 Paragraphs]. [On-line]. http://www.designshare.com/Research/Schank/Schank1.html
Guide for Planning Educational Facilities (1969). Columbus, OH: Council of Educational Facility Planners.
Hall, E., & Handley, R. (2004). High Schools in Crisis. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kowalski, T. J. (1989). Planning and Managing School facilities. New York: Praeger.
Mauer, M. M. , & Davidson, G. S. (1998). Leadership in Instructional Technology. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
McGuffy, C. W. (1973). Systematic Planning for Educational Facilities. Chicago, IL: Chicago Board of Education.
Myers, N., & Robertson, S. (2004). Creating Connections: The CEFPI Guide for Educational Facility Planning. Scottsdale, AZ: CEFPI.
Moore, G.T. and Lackney, J.A. (1994). Educational facilities for the twenty-first century: Research analysis and design patterns. Report R94-1. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee.
National School Boards Association (1998). Technology & School Design: Creating Spaces for Learning. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. Author.
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Slagle, M. (2000). GIS in community-based school planning: A tool to enhance decision making, cooperation, and democratization in the planning process. Paper presented to the Stein & Schools Lecture Series: Policy, Planning, and Design for a 21st Century Public Education System, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Sumption, M. R. (1952). How to Conduct a Citizens School Survey. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Tanner, C.K. and Lackney, J.A. (2006), Educational Facilities Planning: Leadership, Architecture, and Management, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
References
Taylor, A. (2000). Programming and designing public schools within the context of community. Paper presented to the Stein & Schools Lecture Series: Policy, Planning, and Design for a 21st Century Public Education System, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Townsend, R. (1971). Up The Organization. New York: Fawcett World Library.
U. S. Department of Education. (2000). Schools as centers of community: A citizens’ guide for planning and design (Educational Publications Center, P. O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398). Author.
My question is...With the multiple variables that exist between the vast array of school districts (in Texas particularly), where is the line drawn between relying on building experts and using your own influence as a educational expert when it comes to planning a new school. For small districts, where the chief school official may wear many "hats", it would seem plausible for them to immerse themselves in the project of planning a new facility because they may only go through the process once every 10 to 15 years. In larger districts, chief school officers may plan a new school, or three, every year. I know that every situation is unique in a sense, however, should the small district leader rely on and be more or less influenced by the building professionals who "have done this before"?
ReplyDeletelike it
ReplyDeleteThis blog reminds me of recent conversations I had with my daughter while educating her about segregation, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Harriett Tubman..... She asked me what the difference was between the black schools and the white schools. I gave an honest reply. I responded that it was the quality of education received and the type of facilities offered at the different campuses. We talked about how the nicer facilities made for a better education as physical, emotional, and academic needs were met. I explained to her that in the black schools, those children may try to get a drink of water but the fountains were so old, the may have not worked or dispensed the water properly causing those children to not get water. They then return to class, still thirsty and now distracted by how thirsty they were while the white school's facilities worked just fine. Therefore, the needs of the white children were met and focus and effort was no problem for them. This is just one example of how the facilities can impact education and why keeping them updated is so important.
ReplyDeleteB. Hassell (TSU)
Nice Blog!!
ReplyDelete