A Procedural Model for Developing School Facilities

A Procedural Model for Developing School Facilities

We introduce several methods for planning school facilities in our work on educational facilities (Tanner and Lackney, 2006).  All of my favorite procedures eventually come back to strategic planning, however.  This is just my own preference and you may find one you like better.   I follow a ten-step procedure that takes about nine months in real time to complete.  If you are in a hurry, the process may be reduced to five steps, but that puts too much confidence in a for profit group to define school functions.  “Money makes people nervous,” so be careful that you and your school people (non-profit public servants) don’t get taken to the cleaners (so to speak).  Remember one of our BIG problems (in education) is that the non-profit education business (trusting souls that we are) goes up against the for profit sector in the facility planning, design, engineering, and construction business.   Ideally, we really need a year to think a planning project through from beginning to ending.

While many of the planning models that exist employ various collaborative procedures, they actually are linear or circular presentations of required, state mandated, activities with steps delineated to drive them sequentially.  Most states “Barney” down educational facilities planning into a step-by-step cookbook approach implying “Leave the Thinking to Us.”  We should demand involvement and not according to a cookbook.  Taylor (2000) emphasized the involvement of communities, and stated “communities seeking to design schools for the future must think in an integrated manner to join the goals of education to those of architectural design” (p. 3).

Our model draws heavily from writers such as Taylor and Sanoff, while adding emphasis to the use of expertise, information, resources, and data and to the whole spectrum of participation of the school and community.  Planning educational facilities includes an input, process, and output system, with significant interrelationships and data sharing among the school facility planners, the school district, and all the other schools within the district.  We contend that these relationships also extend to the state where the school is located and even to the federal level in the United States through laws, codes, and restrictions, especially in the field of special education.  There are six broad assumptions supporting the structure of the development model.

·      The total facilities program in a school district is planned and managed to advance the mission of the school, with emphasis on student learning and teaching. 

·      All students can learn in a developmentally appropriate environment.

·      The development of schools always occurs in the context of local, state, and federal regulatory policies, including funding methods and all legal aspects of providing school learning environments.

·      The development of educational facilities is a continuous process; therefore the school system is always accruing data and information relevant to all aspects of this complex process.

·      The outcomes of the model are safe, comfortable, and developmentally appropriate learning environments for teaching and learning in a multicultural society.

·      An ample supply of relevant information and resources for planning and decision-making is available. 

Below you will find a representation of our procedural model for planning and designing educational facilities, with evaluation as a continuous process throughout.  Horizontal oval designs show the process of planning in a linear and interactive mode, while the vertical ovals represent sources of information, expertise, and involvement.  The shadowed, dark arrows depict responsibility and involvement of people and groups in the designated process, while the larger light-shadowed arrows depict interaction and involvement.  For example, there may be involvement of parents, students, community members, and educators in the construction process (citizens’ oversight committee), but often experts having resources, skills, and data will be involved in the construction phase without much input from the community.  Construction is a direct responsibility of people in leadership positions, while resulting from the planning, programming, and design phases.  

Quality and flow of information and how it is shared among the many individuals involved in providing school facilities is essential for people in leadership positions as well as for those that participate in the process.  Leadership, the major premise, also performs a significant function in the model, indicating the importance of direction, vision, mission, decision-making, and allocation of resources.  Leadership is found at all levels, indicating shared vision and responsibility as various jobs emerge in this complex process. Notwithstanding, the final decision always rests with the governing board and the chief school officer.  The chief school officer is directly responsible for the outcomes of any construction project.   Note that the numbers below each of the descriptors in the model represent combinations of the eight premises outlined earlier in my blog.  They appropriately complement each specific function.

References:

Tanner, C. K. and Lackney, J. A. (2006), Educational Facilities Planning: Leadership, Architecture, and Management, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

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 21^st Century Public Education System, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.