I once heard that an educational facility master plan was ALL about buildings. This couldn’t be farther from the truth!
An educational facility master plan is about educational excellence. Planning for the future! Quality learning! Practicality and efficiency! And, of course, these major educational objectives must be properly accommodated within a well built and well maintained learning environment.
Simply stated, “sticks and bricks” by themselves, don’t sell well to the public. Any comprehensive facility master plan must put the “life” into “lifelong learning”. It must make buildings personal and about children. And then, it must translate that personal touch into a practical, realistic, and cost-effective solution for building remodeling and new construction.
This article will present a 10-point checklist of issues to consider during the facility planning process. Issues will pertain to a single school being remodeled or to an entire school district undergoing massive remodeling, new construction, and maintenance upgrades.
1. Plan “Futuristically” and Practically for Remodeling and New Construction
It is always more fun to plan a new building. People seem to think they can get off to a fresh start and try new ideas. A clean new site seems like the perfect situation to reinvent learning, etc., etc., etc.
Remember, 90% of the “schools of the future” are already built. They should, however, be remodeled for new curriculum trends and future flexibility!
Consideration! Proper planning of a remodeled facility is as important as planning for new construction. And, remodeling can often accomplish 90% or more of the new instructional concepts, technology uses, and maintenance efficiencies associated with a new building. Remodeling projects can and must be used as an opportunity to reinvent staff thinking about educational delivery, technology uses, team activities, and more.
2. Consider Future Trends Appropriate for Your District -- Do’s and Don’ts
3. Projects are NEVER Too Small to Plan—except if you have a small amount of money to waste.
A small school district once suggested that a project was too small to afford planning. They thought, “Just Do IT!” This approach may work for Nike. But be assured, Nike plans their least expensive shoe very carefully.
Even a few hours of oversight on a small project by a properly trained educational planning professional should improve efficiency, offer options for instructional enhancement, and often times, save money. Advanced planning should help:
· Define program goals.
· Reach clarity about how students, staff, public, etc. will be better served, how learning issues should be accomplished, and how many students will be affected.
· Outline the complete extent of technologies to be used… not just computers.
With today’s internet technologies, such a small-project review can be conducted using digitized photos and floor plans, combined with conversations by telephone with educational leaders. In a recent example, two Texas high school general classrooms proposed for conversion to special education were substantially enhanced by a variety of recommendations which addressed lighting, color, visual connectivity through interior windows, exterior tinted windows to reduce glare, directional speakers, appropriately located instructional television, and even relocating an old HVAC unit to increase storage area efficiency.
The money would have been spent on something anyway, but by properly combining multiple elements of functionality in a more unified fashion, the solution was ultimately less expensive, while substantially improving educational delivery. The process also assured the educators that their ideas were on target. In the end, they had an expanded sense of educational clarity and operational efficiency.
Consideration! Educationally plan ALL projects – big and small. But, make sure that any expenditure for planning makes sense in light of the expected project value.
4. Net-to-Gross Ratios can be really “Gross” … if planned poorly… and great when planned well.
An often totally overlooked aspect of educational facility design is the net-to-gross ratio. This is the percentage of space allocated to hallways, walls, mechanical rooms, and other areas to support the “net” usable academic spaces, which consist of the interior dimensions of classrooms, libraries, etc. All too often, a hidden and less obvious factor escalating total construction costs is the amount of area that may be unknowingly assigned to “gross” square footage.
Ironically, school facilities with very high net-to-gross ratios may not make wonderful schools, as small corridors may make circulation difficult. Additionally, many of our wonderful schools of the past conveyed the importance of education by generously allocating space for public assembly and circulation, but at what cost?. The planning intention is informed financial analysis and informed decision-making regarding this important net-to-gross design element.
Any master-planning situation should have a clear, up-front objective of clarity on the gross square footage assigned to any new or remodeled building solution. Approaches may include:
· Planning for the most efficient design standards as starting position.
· Then, assign specific area to those “dignifying” spaces proposed for a commons, main entry, team areas, just as if they are educational programmed spaces.
· Then, at a macro scale, make informed decisions as to the total G\\gross square foot cost compared to the affordable project budget.
Further, at the micro design level,
· Analyze unusually shaped rooms, such as triangles, that often create wasted corners that never get efficient educational use. Odd shapes, which look “cool” in plan, can reduce the efficiency and use of interior classroom space by as much as 20% or more.
· Science labs with a huge demonstration table and teacher “sage on the stage” design can also result in as much a 200square foot lost from educational use.
In summary,
· Avoid accepting an overall average net-to-gross ratio for the whole building.
· Rather, separately analyze areas, such as gymnasiums, which are very large and thus have very efficient net-to-gross ratios compared to classrooms, technology education areas, offices, etc.
· Then, factor in and agree on the extent of “special” spaces to make the building “timeless” and an asset to the community as part of a total objective, and quantifiable value engineering analysis process.
Consideration! If the project is over budget and square footage reductions are necessary, look at the gross square footage utilizing a systematic and objective process.
5. Room Dimensions Really Count – length and width of rooms are NOT arbitrary to learning results.
Proper building design is an extensive three-phase process. Oftentimes educators are only involved in Phase I design (Schematics), which accounts for all the rooms and basically locates them in the building. Square footage size is also defined during schematic design. Factors that really make the space work for students, teachers, and learning, are identified in Phase II design (Design Development) when actual room layouts are finalized. This is where the “rubber” often hits the road.
Consideration! It is essential that serious attention be given by educators to Phase II interior room designs and dimensions of spaces in addition to Phase I conceptual schematic designs.
6. Plan Review—A Third-Party Critique can save Money and Improve Efficiency.
Many districts are having an outside third party (educational planner) review and critique schematic and design development documents. Such a review can either confirm programmatic functionality or suggest modifications to the design to better accomplish educational objectives cost affectively. Often times the design team and participating educators can get “too close” to the proposed solution and thus overlook issues of net-to-gross ratio, room dimensions, and functional orientations important to learning.
Consideration! An outside critique and plan review by an educational planner can be accomplished in a day or two and offer numerous alternatives to improve efficiency, long-term flexibility, and possible reduce project cost.
7. Building Capacity—The Hidden Secret to Efficiency and Referendum Success
Properly portraying building utilization and capacity is an important tool by which a district can promote building efficiency to the community and increase the likelihood of passing a bond referendum. Yet, understanding utilization and capacity and translating it clearly to the public can be a difficult task.
All too often capacity is associated with an overall average building utilization factor such as 70-80%. If there are 1000 student stations, (locations for students to sit), an 80% utilization would mean the school would best serve an 800 student enrollment capacity. Yet, in reality, the efficiency of utilization may fluctuate greatly from department to department. This is particularly true for high schools, where efficient utilization planning may try to increase capacity of expensive and large science rooms, art rooms, and physical education areas. It may be preferable to operate classrooms at a slightly reduced efficiency and in a fashion that will allow effective teaming, schools within school organizations. These popular emerging operations focus on an expended integration of core curriculum instruction.
Consideration! Think of capacity and efficiency on an area-by-area basis and not necessarily summarize this feature building wide. This will improve operational presentation, economize on building size/cost, and be more understandable and acceptable to the community – resulting in both efficiency and educational excellence.
8. A Good Master Plan DOES Include Maintenance
Building maintenance, renovation, and education should be inextricably intertwined. These are the features of a quality capital resource master plan. Important emphasis must certainly be placed on the fundamentals of physical conditions such as roofs, mechanical systems, window efficiency, plumbing, and other maintenance items. Unfortunately, a division between maintenance and educational facilities arises when these two departments are treated separately within the organizational structure.
Allowing maintenance repairs to overshadow educational objectives may prove dysfunctional for both education and maintenance. First, it can result in extensive spending on maintenance items to such an extent that upfront cost for repairs overshadow truly needed educational requirements.
Alternatively, properly planning the educational requirements first and then, phasing maintenance over time can address both the up front learning concerns of parents, i.e., educational excellence, while also allowing the phased expenditure of maintenance items. A successful master plan will integrate the best long-term replacement/depreciation schedule of maintenance needs with curriculum changes suggested by educational future trends.
Consideration! A brand spanking newly remodeled building founded on yesterday’s educational methods and technologies will not sell well to today’s more sophisticated parental community.
9. Partnerships in Planning – business, government, civic groups, community colleges.
Increasingly, facility master plans are incorporating outside local groups in a variety of mutually beneficial partnership arrangements. This can include a variety of options, such as students departing the campus for community college level on-the-job training, or allowing community colleges onto school sites to demonstrate advancements in technology, curricula, and career opportunities.
A more recent facility trend is the “Learning Atrium” where businesses have a defined multi-use space where they can set up equipment in a safe and secure manner and make business presentations to students and staff alike. In the best models, business applications are planned and scheduled with high school educators to correspond to the school’s multidisciplinary teams who can then align classroom instruction in terms of practical and authentic career applications.
Consideration! Promote educational excellence and the facility master plan to community colleges and small successful businesses for possible grant funding, shared space use, and enhanced public support.
10. Create a Bond Referendum Package Beneficial to the Entire Community
In the end, a facility master plan must resonate with all members the community to win at election time. For the parents, it must demonstrate educational excellence in a practical, efficient, and safe manner. For senior citizens, it must show that their real estate investment will be protected and even be enhanced through the provision of a quality educational system functioning in well-maintained and pleasant looking facilities. Businesses must feel that the enhanced educational solutions will produce a more stable workforce and career path for students who may go directly from school to work or onto local community colleges.
Consideration! Create and promote a facility master plan that serves the whole community, not just the students, staff, and administration.
A facility master plan cannot simply be “sticks and bricks”, charts and graphs, spreadsheets and dollar totals. It cannot read like the annual report for a widget manufacturing company. A successful facility master plan must focus on educational excellence to win at the ballot box. It must give “life” to “lifelong learning” and connect on a personal with the entire community. And, it must be within budget and practical.
Is this all possible? … with the right planning process, more often than might be expected.
Franklin Hill, Ph.D. is a national educational facility consultant who provides master planning, educational specifications, and design review for school districts, colleges, and corporations undergoing facility change. He often facilitates large scale community involvement activities as part of the facility planning process. He has planned over 250 schools across North America in 23 states and is known for his practical and economical approach to function and creativity.
If you have suggestions, comments, or questions, write directly to Frank@franklinhill.com or visit his website www.FranklinHill.com for additional articles.
Contributing Architect: Sam Johnson, AIA is the leader of the PK-12 design group for BLDD Architects, an Illinois architectural firm specializing in PK-12 school and higher education facility design. Using a master planning process, BLDD works with School Districts across the State to develop logical plans for the future while managing the costs of change. BLDD has most recently completed the implementation of a District-wide facilities master plan for the Decatur Public School District #61. Built on a foundation of educational excellence (through the use of an educational facility planner) and community engagement, this plan has reconnected the School District to the community, energizing both in the process.
Sam Johnson can be reached at: sam.johnson@bldd.com or visit the BLDD website at: www.bldd.com