Premises for the Development of a Procedural Planning Model

*Part III of the ACEF “BLOG” on Premises for the Development of a Procedural Planning Model

By Dr. Ken Tanner, REFP

Premise 6.  The minimization of crisis occurrence through effective management is greatly needed in the information age.  Therefore, we contend that management is systematic, data, and goal driven. 

Obviously, the management system should include accountability so that a comparison can be made among stated goals to outcomes.  This is the glue that holds the organization together.  Sometimes the manager is a leader and sometimes the leader is a manager. Managers and leaders must know what is to be done, have a strategy ready to do what is planned, and recognize how the final outcomes compare with the expected outcomes.  They also must recognize that the landscape for developing and providing schools is often confusing and messy.

The development model I advocate should help produce schools that meet the goals of learning and teaching. Although measurements of effectiveness may be taken in post occupancy evaluations, this activity may be too late if then a design is shown not to facilitate learning and teaching.  The political reality is that unless all parties share the stated goals for learning and teaching students in the beginning of the process, the end results may not be built environments that facilitate the educational goals and objectives. You may possibly know of incidents where architectural plans were not completely followed because the contractor did not want to build in a certain way – leaving out a window here and there, failing to put a vent in a certain space, and skimping on acoustical and insulation treatments, for example. 

General management goes beyond the planning, design, and construction phases in providing school facilities.  It encompasses the messy political environment of these activities.  Under the general umbrella of management, we find operations and maintenance of the structures and land that supports the buildings, playgrounds, nature trails, and other outdoor learning environments.  Management of operations and maintenance starts with planning and design.  For example, custodial care of the place where students learn begins in the planning phase.

Premise 7.  The demand for resources is greater than those available to complete the ideal project. 

This is most frequently the case; hence, our goal is to maximize the returns to the community with the available resources. This absolutely cannot be done unless we know how the physical environment influences teaching, students, learning, and behavior; and employ value engineering strategies during planning and design.  This is more important than ever in a society that is “going green.” It does not require any new knowledge to build a set of rectangular one-room schoolhouses without windows, divided by a not-too-wide hallway, and call the result a new school.  With some variations in color and roof pitch, we all have seen such structures even called “schools of the future.”  Yes, they are schools of the future, if the community does not expect much from its students.

Acquisition of fiscal resources is vital, since this function dominates all planning, design, and construction activities.  Efficient and effective use of capital is expected, including the investment of time, personnel, and labor that make up the whole process of planning, building, and maintaining a school and its surrounding property.  Obviously, the goal is to produce a structurally sound and educationally efficient, accountable, reasonable, and thrifty product, including outdoor learning areas.  The educationally efficient aspect of school buildings can only be met if the built design accommodates the educational program and caters to learning and teaching.  The words “thrifty” and “reasonable” do not necessarily mean cheap, and “efficient” does not mean cutting out necessary spaces and places for learning.  After all, the building must be accountable to the educational program, while reflecting fiscal responsibility.

Premise 8.  By involving stakeholders, the school and community should work cooperatively and in a collaborative manner to ensure that schools are designed and built to enhance teaching and learning and serve as centers of the community.

Essentials such as a safe context and the safety and security of the teachers and students are the expected natural by-products of planning spaces and places for teaching and learning.  Community involvement allows for ease of “buying into” the project and its outcomes.  Sanoff (2000) has provided one of the most comprehensive descriptions of community participation in print today.  Under the topic “scope of social architecture,” he notes that participation is necessary for transforming the environment and people that live in it.  It is highly important in school facilities planning that the community not be treated as passive clients, but as involved consumers. 

Myers and Robertson (2004) offer several suggestions for community connections involving stakeholders, emphasizing the benefits of community involvement.  Their models run parallel to strategic planning methods that may be employed in most stages of school facilities planning, but exactly how aspects of strategic planning can become an integral part of the process can take many paths.  Regardless of the path or model selected for involvement, an ultimate goal is to influence change in school design that matches and facilitates the changing curriculum.  

Now continue to my next blog to review a model for planning schools.

  

References:

Myers, N., & Robertson, S. (2004).  Creating Connections: The CEFPI Guide for Educational Facility Planning.  Scottsdale, AZ:  CEFPI.

Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning.  New York:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

* I have extracted much of this blog from my work, with permission, (with Jeff Lackney) on school facilities planning.  Tanner, C.K. and Lackney, J.A. (2006), Educational Facilities Planning: Leadership, Architecture, and Management, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.