Implementation of President Barak Obama’s Agenda on School Infrastructure:
How to Improve School Infrastructure; Spend Stimulus Money Wisely, and Share the Wealth
( Link to the proposal section of this article)
Dr. C. Kenneth Tanner, REFP
TFPG
1860 Barnett Shoals Road
Suite 103 - 407
Athens, GA 30605

February 02, 2009

 

Introduction to the Problem

 

The economic stimulus package proposed for education in 2009 will need more strict guidelines for spending than policies of former times.  We have seen serious questions arising from citizens and political leaders about the banking, insurance, and automobile worlds that took bailout money and then continued operations as usual – sometimes worse than customary.  Taxpayers in the United States are not satisfied with the act of new money being poured into failing business models.  Neither will the public be content and allow old educational facilities planning methods to soak up the new bailout money for the educational infrastructure.  The field of education is just as likely to continue to employ incorrect planning models as did the automobile, insurance, and banking industries, which initially avoided sound business models in favor of business as usual – policies that led to failure.  The purpose of this article is to attempt to head off imprudent spending in educational facilities planning, design, and construction by paying attention to both the process and product in a multi-billion dollar business that has largely ignored teachers, students, stakeholders, and sound planning practices over the past 20 years.

 

Conducting research only in the United States, the researchers at the School Design and Planning Laboratory (SDPL, 2009) has learned to question many of the planning and building practices that have dominated recent planning and school construction activities.  After reviewing policies from several states for over 20 years regarding the development of schools 1, I have concluded, along with the SDPL research results, that the educational planning, design, architectural, and construction business in the United States operates under flawed policy, which allows bad decisions by school boards and state departments of education. 

 

Looming large is the fact that school planning and design have been dominated by for-profit businesses operated by planning and architectural consulting firms, the majority of which is controlled and made up of white upper middle class males in the United States.  This group has done limited data-based research, making it difficult to find credible evidence on solid educational facilities planning and design in the United States.  Case studies and opinion appear to be the leading types of information released to the public at large.  After publication of an opinion article, many writers opt to cite it as a piece of research.  It then becomes fiction masked as fact.  It is here that the ugly spiral of half truths start to unfold from the published article, and some writers go so far as to carry the opinion article beyond fiction to oxymoron status by calling it best practices research.  So, the issue of research on school facilities planning and design gets very fuzzy very quickly.  Perhaps the best legitimate initial research on product that influenced school design in the late 1900’s came from the field of environmental psychology, which produced several quantitative studies that may have been utilized by some schools and far fewer for-profit operations (see for example, Sommer, 1969, 1983).   A review of the few published works on the educational facilities planning process and resulting products may be found in Tanner and Lackney (2006).  Two excellent publications on process have been written by Sanoff (2000), and Earthman (2000).

 

Since the for-profit business sector has been paid by school boards to plan, design, and build schools, the blame for poor schools and failing infrastructure lies partially at the feet of educational leaders and school boards.   Notwithstanding, the educational system and the for-profit businesses share equally in the demise of school design and poor student achievement in the United States.  Taxpayers who have supported bad educational policy on school facilities planning must also admit their share of blame.  The educational system includes colleges and universities that educate and train school leaders.  Very few colleges and universities offer courses or formal training in educational facilities planning and design.  The process of how to design a school is ignored in the formal education of school leaders, so this aspect of the planning, design, and building process, by default, has been given over to the for-profit sector, which usually knows little about the school’s philosophy, its curriculum, teaching and learning methods, or how the physical environment influences learning and behavior. 

 

The general policy context for delivering educational facilities in the United States includes the school boards, educational leaders, the colleges and universities, for-profit planning and architectural firms, and the taxpayers.  The taxpayers are included because they, and educational leaders, have allowed a bad planning process to evolve in the name of expediency, which includes prototype schools, little to no stakeholder participation in planning and design, and rapid, substandard construction processes.  Too often teachers and students are totally ignored.  Figure 1 reveals that local school planning; design, and construction fall mostly under the gray areas of control provided by state departments of education, with some federal oversight.


             

 

Figure 1: The Policy Making Context for Developing Educational Facilities

 

Few schools have been constructed to the satisfaction of educators.  Some major complaints, backed up by research findings, are that schools often are not built to the scale of the student (age appropriate heights and dimensions), and students in these schools do not have adequate space for learning and circulation (Meek, 1995).  Natural lighting is poor, or nonexistent in many classrooms, although it has been shown to positively influence student productivity (Heschong Mahone Group, 1999).

 

One cause for the inadequate school facility is that the people who use the facility are, for the most part, ignored during the process of developing educational learning environments (Figure 1).  This oversight may be caused by the perceived need to rush toward school construction, sanctioned by poor educational planning at the state and local levels, and ignorance about participatory processes and school design on the part of educational leaders and school boards.  Often educational leaders and school boards have not exhibited knowledge or patience to utilize group process techniques needed to build schools.  They most often ignore community participation strategies such as those proposed by Sanoff (2000).  Thus, the lack of stakeholder participation is a major contributor to the problem of building bad schools.  All too often school boards ignore teachers, students, and parents, or allow only a cameo role suggested by the for-profit business that has taken over most school development in the United States.  Dealing with stakeholders on a serious level takes up more time than the for-profit businesses have been willing to give up.

 

Some Facts and Fiction about the Expected Product (Student Outcomes)

 

The SDPL (2009) has completed research that goes beyond case studies, best practices, and statistical relationships by identifying the effects of the school environment on student outcomes.  Since 1997, the SDPL’s research agenda has been described as The ABC’s for Upgrading School Environments, where we have continuously looked at the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions of student learning and linked these factors, through sound statistical methods, to the physical environment of the school.  Repeated studies at the University of Georgia have found significant relationships between the physical environment of the school and student outcomes such as achievement and behavior (Tanner, 2006, 2008). 

 

Throughout the United States, many students are crammed into deteriorating schools that need billions of dollars in repairs, renovations, or construction (National Center for Educational Statistics; 2000, 2003, 2007).  If we follow the currently prevailing policies of planning and designing public schools in the United States, and if the needed change is attempted through these old policies on building and renovating schools, there is little hope that our county will ever come out of the educational slump plaguing most public schools.  I contend this is true because one of the last research frontiers in education is the school facility and how it affects student learning and behavior.  We are just beginning to find how it influences student learning.  But, following the old policies on educational facilities development will only lead the educational system to implode under failed planning, design, and construction policies of recent years.  There are some quotes of fiction, facts, and costs being spread throughout the media: 

 

Fiction

 

Parents, students, and teachers do not know what they want.  However, architects and planners do know what facilities are best for teaching and learning.

 

Minimize the community inputs about school design and construction to save time.  Parents, students, and teachers just get in the way of bringing the school in under cost and delay the time lines.

 

Smaller classes are best for student teaching and learning.  Ignore the number of students per usable square foot.

 

If we involve the community stakeholders, let’s keep it to one or two meetings, and then they will think they had a part in developing the school. Group process requires too much time.

 

 Windows in classrooms waste energy and money and cause distractions for the student.  By keeping students from seeing through windows to the outside, their attention can be focused on the teacher.  Schools without windows and natural light are less expensive and more energy efficient. 

 

Students perform just as well in a dull school as a fancy school; and the teacher-centered method of teaching is adequate (sitting in straight rows and listening to teachers lecture).  The design of the school does not matter, so build the school as cheaply as possible, and eliminate frills and aesthetics (the fancy school house). 

   

Facts

 

Well-designed classrooms influence how children learn and bring aesthetics to a traditionally dull atmosphere.  This is partially true since we have hard evidence on certain design features, but the statistical data are thin regarding aesthetics, although we wish it were not (SDPL, 2009).

 

President Obama proposes to enhance schools by making the technology and the Internet available to students.  This may be one of the most important gifts students ever receive from the public school system.  Our research on school design and after school programs supports the use of technology as an effective influence on student learning (Tanner, 2006).

 

There is a growing body of evidence that improving classrooms influences student performance positively.  SDPL research supports this aspect     of the President’s policy proposal (SDPL, 2009).

 

Students attending crowded schools and classrooms have lower academic performance.  This relates to the notion that “smaller is better,” but smaller and crowding must be clarified (Wohlwill and van Vliet, 1985).  Student population density, not whether the school is small or large, is one significant area ready for change.  Swift (2000) found that students attending schools having more that 100 architectural square feet per student scored significantly higher on standardized tests.

 

There exists very limited data indicating that smaller class sizes or schools actually help to improve student outcomes across all socioeconomic (SES) classes. Achilles, Finn and Bain (1998), in their classic study, found that smaller classes were helpful to children in inner-city schools.  This statement may not apply to all SES classes, however.  The SDPL has hard data that can be backed-up with statistical evidence showing that ample space and circulation patterns correlate with improved standardized test scores across all SES classes (Tanner, 2008).

 

Principals in primary and secondary schools note that deteriorating conditions interfere with learning (National center for Educational Statistics, 2007).  Power outlets are scarce in older schools, and may impede the use of technology.

 

Older schools frequently have mildew and mold in the walls and carpeted floors, due to leaking roofs.  This brings on allergy and asthma problems, even when the floors are cleaned regularly. 

 

Many hallways in schools across the United States are dark and narrow, not to mention crowded, facilitating behavior problems such as bullying and fighting.  Freedom of movement is necessary to foster positive student outcomes.

 

The Cost

 

There are cost figures everywhere, and no one knows exactly how much money is needed to restore the broken schools and build new, adequate learning environments.  By starting with a set of sound policies and procedures, not heretofore uniformly employed, we can make a difference in as much time as is needed to plan and construct appropriate learning environments. 

 

Estimates are simply estimates, and the cost of upgrading schools ranges from $200 billion to $400 billion as reported by the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International.  Local and state governments and private businesses must share these costs.  The federal dollar, alone, will not solve the problem.  In general, federal dollars account for only a small portion of construction and other school needs. State and local governments almost always spend a higher percentage on school construction than the federal agencies.

 

Federal agencies should consider supporting local school construction with low cost bonds.  This would be a sound approach to get the school planning and construction jobs done according to better policy, especially if local governmental agencies are willing to change current policies and procedures.

 

 School facilities planning, design, and construction can begin immediately, upon release of the financial stimulus package proposed by President Obama.  Jumping to construction without serious planning as described in the following section, is a waste of money and is not even a short-term fix.

 

A Proposed Policy Implementation Process for Upgrading Schools

 

Non-profit educational organizations must take authority over for-profit organizations to demand that any new educational form (building), by necessity, accommodates the educational functions set forth by the community who is paying most of the cost of the project.  This is not going to be easy since there are too many players that think they know what is needed by the educational institutions (see for example Figure 1).   The for-profit organizations say, “Let us tell you what you need, because we can save you money.”  The for-profit organization knows that there are educational specifications and a school design in a drawer or on a computer hard drive that will be perfect for your community, and at a reduced percentage of normal architectural charges.  The non-profit educational organization is accustomed to being told what to do if they want the funding to come through.  So, “we get what we get” and should be glad to get it; and of course, we saved money since we received a discount on the architectural and design fees.

 

Here are some actions in Table 1 that ensure that architectural form will follow educational function – to let the educational program dictate school design.  Educational decision makers should demand that form must follow function.  

 

Table 1

Develop an Educational Program that Dictates School Design – Form Follows Function

 

 

·         In the pre-planning stages, demand that curriculum experts define current and future educational trends.

 

·         Identify current and future teaching and learning styles that will be experienced in the new school facility.

 

·         Know the current and expected demographics of the school.

 

·         Review data-based research on how the educational environment influences student outcomes and be very cautious about best practices (Always ask:  whose best practices and know if they may be generalized to your setting – Remember best practices research is an oxymoron).

 

·         Complete educational planning and concept design through focused strategic planning before employing an architect or design team.  Therefore, the non-profit tells the for-profit organization what functions are to be accommodated by the design (form) of the school.

 

·         Since architectural fees are in the range of 6% to 10% of the total cost for building a school, reduce the architect’s load by shifting more activities into focused strategic planning.  Lower the percentage from 5% to 9% and reduce the architects workload and responsibilities. 

 

·         Revise state and local policies governing architects.

 

·         Set aside approximately 1% of the expected project cost for pre-planning, including focused strategic planning and concept design, and allow no interference from the for-profit industry.  Stay away from influence of for-profit organizations outside education in planning for school learning environments.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Through continuous use and work with students and school systems according to various strategic planning models, the SDPL has discovered and implemented a hybrid of several paradigms that is labeled Focused Strategic Planning (FSP).  This five-step strategy discussed in the next sections might be employed to upgrade the educational facilities planning processes in the United States.  In Figure 2, note a possible place where FSP might fit into the typical policy on building or remodeling schools.  The section of the flowchart highlighted in red is missing from planning models in many states studied by SDPL.  This is based on the ideas and materials presented in Table 1.



 


            Figure 2.  A Modification of Existing Policy to Ensure Better Student Outcomes

 

Focused Strategic Planning Activities for Developing Educational Facilities  

Five Steps in the Policy Implementation Proposal

This section introduces basis steps in the development of a facilities plan.  The Focused Strategic Planning (FSP) model, as used here, is a modified version of traditional, generic strategic planning.  Intended to generate focused goals for the development of educational specifications and concept design, FSP enhances the process for achieving a school facilities plan by relying on educationally desirable design principles.  We may wish to avoid the selection of some of the educational specifications already cataloged and stored for instant retrieval because they may be irrelevant to critical, unique program demands.  Our goal is to create focused goals for educational design. Once the goals for educational specifications clearly represent a unique setting, the task of completing focused educational specifications may be administered under architectural or design team supervision.  Selected personnel that participated in the FSP activity and the architectural team should follow the goals set forth in this phase of planning for the completion of educational specifications. 

Once the educational plan has been completed (the goals for educational specifications and concept design are written and approved), it is time to select the architect to guide the translation of goals and concept designs into schematic design. Therefore, this exercise stops short of developing written educational specifications because it is desirable to complete them with the assistance of the architectural team. Educational specifications, including code requirements, guide the structural plans of the school facility, making way for bidding and construction. 

            Step I – Decide Who Should be Involved in Planning

Usually a leadership team of approximately 15 - 25 members who are committed to FSP and represent a cross section of “stakeholders” is ideal to complete “real-time” planning, programming and concept design.  For example, for the leadership team, I recommend the inclusion of a paid “outside the school” facilitator who is also and educator with a strong interest in school design, two or three members of each activity team representing various program elements (English, Mathematics, Music, Physical Education, Art, etc.), and a professional planner who is also and educator.  The leadership team must be composed of members who are energetic, dependable, knowledgeable, and compatible.  Ideally, the facilitator of the smaller activity teams is also a member of the leadership team.  Typically, the school system’s educational planner has the job of identifying, inviting, and selecting people who will participate in the FSP process.

It is important to select membership on leadership and activity planning teams very carefully because these individuals will be working together for a long time.  When planning and designing a new school, teams such as mathematics, science, English, etc., according to subject area, may be formulated to focus on strategic goals, objectives, plans, and design. The suggested sequence of monthly meetings for a practical setting is straightforward:  The leadership team and the activity teams meet together, first, for orientation. Thereafter, all activity teams meet before the meeting of the leadership team.  In essence, once the teams hold their first meeting, the flow of information from the bottom up helps to shape the FSP that includes, vision, mission, goals, strategies, goals for educational specifications, and concept design. 

  

Step II - Develop a Focused Mission Statement for Educational Facilities 

 

The mission will probably be a complementary part of the larger vision and mission already established by the school.   A mission statement designed to change the school’s infrastructure should focus on the physical environment.  It is a “a belief” statement around which the school and its clients can organize their energies and efforts – what we believe about how the educational learning environments should facilitate the curriculum, forming the foundation for the remaining FSP activities and supporting a shared vision for the total organization.  It is a description of why the physical learning environments exist.  The mission is the benchmark statement against which all planning steps can be tested for relevance.  I suggest following the planning model of Clay, Lake, and Tremain (1989) that indicates, “The mission should be developed before the goals and objectives.”  This approach hinges on the fact that the future of our school facilities is determined in a great part on what we believe, our values, our aesthetic values reflected in architecture, and the identity (design principles) that distinguishes them from other school facilities in neighboring schools.

 

Step III - Construct Factual Statements that Support the Design of the School and Educational Specifications

 

With knowledge of the trends and issues from the environmental scans (Usually curriculum, organizational, and demographic pre-assigned studies of the school service area) curriculum and program needs of the school, and school support, develop a list of assumptions about what the school should look like in 5 - 10 - 20 years.  It is impossible to predict the future accurately, but it is necessary to make some assumptions about the future.  This type of thinking supports what Clay et al (1989) refer to as a surprise-free scenario.  The surprise-free scenario depends on sound, factual information.

 

Surprise-free scenario statements are direct spin-offs of the internal and external information found in the studies of the program, organization, and the demographic analysis of an area.  They are assumptions about the future based on past trends, current data, and best estimates of experts.  The examples below should inspire ideas for surprise-free scenario statements.  They also represent the ideal school that stakeholders have in mind for this project.

 

Examples of Surprise-Free Scenario Statements

School

 

 

Community

 

 

These are the basic assumptions that guide the design goals and infer the educational specifications. It is now time to encourage the team members to begin searching the library and Internet for examples of school designs, since design is now in view.  At this point, the FSP team should know the number of students to be served and the expected program of study (Such a study could be completed by some of the FSP team members, but might best be commissioned to an independent team early in the process).  This information should correspond to and be influenced by the results of the factual information collected by the FSP team.  The types of scheduling to be used in the school must be known before step IV begins. The FSP team must be encouraged to think about the future, and to plan a school for 3 years from now as well as for 20 – 30 years from now.

 

Step IV - Develop Strategic Goals for School Design and Educational Specifications

 

This is a time consuming step for the activity teams, involving the development of goals for design and educational specifications based on the “surprise-free” scenarios and mission and vision for the new school.  The development of concept design may parallel the development of goals for specifications, since almost nothing in the “real world” is accomplished in a linear manner.  One purpose of the goals for educational concept design is to assist the architect or design team in developing and modifying educational specifications.

 

Given that the school environment is assumed to influence student outcomes, the purposes of goals for concept design and educational specifications are to facilitate a comprehensive description of the spaces needed to facilitate the school program.  Some examples of goals for educational specifications are:

 

Goal:  To provide a program that will accommodate more than one teaching and learning philosophy.

Goal:  To select furniture that is comfortable, flexible, and amenable to the teaching and learning philosophies.

Goal:  To provide ample usable space (from 39 to 49 square feet) for each student and teacher within each classroom. 

Goal:  To provide for natural light on at least two sides of each learning space.

Goal:  To ensure ample circulation patterns within classrooms and within the school.

Goal:  To provide for ample outlets to “green” outdoor learning areas.

Goal:  To ensure that all classrooms have views overlooking life.

Goal:  To provide toilets in each classroom for safety, convenience, and security.

             

After writing each set of goals, perform a reality check:  Does the goal fit the school philosophy and mission statements?  Does it address one of the needs, problems, or opportunities identified through the scenarios?  Can it be accomplished?  Is it something worth doing?

 

Step V- From Goals to Concept Design to Educational Specifications

 

Now is the time to sketch the floor plans and perhaps 3-D views that illustrate the goals for design and specifications.  Up to this point, the job of the collective effort of FSP team has been that of an educational planner describing and explaining the program and program needs, and clarifying the intent for teaching and learning.  Therefore, translate the strategic design goals in Step IV into a concept drawing. The concept drawings and sketches must follow the philosophy and values defined in the strategic plan (Which, if records are kept throughout, includes these five steps of pre-design planning).  The goals and concept drawings are direct outgrowths of the overall values, philosophy, vision, the environmental information, and the surprise-free scenarios.  The concept design should be reasonable and achievable, and should correlate to concepts developed in previous steps.  At this point, we transition to the desired design.

 

To keep the illustration in context, consider six goals found from Step IV and illustrated in Figure 3.  This is the product of the FSP method.  It sets the stage for the development of schematic drawings.  It has been developed completely by educators who are also planners.

 

Goal 1:  To provide for natural light on at least two sides of each learning space.

Goal 2:  To ensure ample circulation patterns within classrooms and within the school.

Goal 3:  To provide for ample outlets to “green” outdoor learning areas.

Goal 4:  To ensure that all classrooms have views overlooking life.

Goal 5:  To provide toilets in each classroom for safety, convenience, and security.

Goal 6:  To provide ample circulation patterns and usable space (from 39 to 49 square feet) for each student and teacher within each classroom

 

The concept drawing in Figure 3 was inspired by the schematic illustration shown by Roger Shepard in his description of Crow Island School (Perkins and Will).  It may be viewed at the Internet site of the University of Georgia’s School Design and Planning Laboratory (SDPL, 2009): http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/HTML/schooldesign.html.  This is just one classroom delineated by the gray sections at the top and bottom, where additional classrooms exist. Note the courtyard/garden area.  This concept was probably borrowed from Jefferson’s design of the Lawn at the University of Virginia.


 
            Figure 3.  Classroom Concept Drawing With Six Design Goals

Note that there are computer assisted drawing programs (CAD) that can provide a much more exact scaled drawing.  However, the results of Steps I through V allow us to communicate to the architect exactly how we think the design goals might be implemented in a school.  I prefer this approach instead of “bubble diagrams” that are sometimes used to convey space relationships for a program.  Power Point was used to develop Figure 3, but in different settings, with people having different talents, sketches made by hand or with CAD programs.

 

The above five-step procedure encourages community participation.  Hopefully, teachers and students will become part of the planning and design teams funded by the President’s stimulus package.  This focused strategic planning procedure is a radical policy change for many school districts in the United States who have elected to build prototype schools and allowed for-profit organizations to dictate the type of school they build.  The FSP model facilitates Change that President Obama has endorsed!

 

Notes

1  Over the past years as consultant and student of educational facilities planning, the author has studied school facilities planning in Arizona, Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, West Virginia, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and in 2008, the state of California.  The model discussed in this article was presented to the California Department of Education in October 2008.

 

References

 

Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., & Bain, H. P. (1998). Using class size to reduce the equity gap.  Educational Leadership, 55(4): 40-43.

 

Clay, K, Lake, S., and Tremain, K. (1989), How to Build a Strategic Plan, Ventures for Public Awareness, San Carlos, CA.

 

Earthman, G. (2000). Planning educational facilities for the next century.  Reston, VA: Association of School Business Officials, International.

 

Heschong Mahone Group. (1999). Daylighting in schools.  Fair Oaks, CA: Heschong Mahone Group.

 

Meek, A. (ed.) (1995). Designing places for learning.  Alexandria, VA:  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Condition of America’s public school facilities: 1999 (NCES 2000-032). Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

 

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). Planning guide for maintaining school facilities: 1999 (NCES 2000-032). Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/maintenance/

 

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Public school principals report on their school facilities. Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007007

 

Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning.  New York:  John Wiley & Sons.

 

SDPL (2009). School Design and Planning Laboratory.  The University of Georgia, http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/sdpl.html

 

Sommer, R. (1969).  Personal Space, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

 

Sommer, R. (1983). Social Design.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall.

 

Swift, D.O. (2000) Effects of student population density on academic achievement in Georgia elementary schools.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

 

Tanner, C. K., Lackney, J. A. (2006). Educational facilities planning: Leadership, architecture, and management. Boston:  Allyn & Bacon.

 

Tanner, C. K. (2008). Explaining relationships among student outcomes and the school’s physical environment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19 (3), 444-471.

 

Wohlwill, J. F., & van Vliet, W. (1985).  Habitats for children:  The impacts of density.  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Coda


It will be interesting to observe if any for-profit lobbying groups exert pressure on Washington officials in charge of the infrastructure money for schools (stimulus package) to keep the present failing school facilities planning processes as they are.

Example:  How to Improve School Infrastructure; Spend Stimulus Money Wisely, and Share the Wealth!

Now, let's review how this model facilitates three objectives: Improve school infrastructure, Spend the stimulus dollars wisely, and share the wealth.
Consider the personnel required to build a $7,000,000.00 school through the Business as Usual Model as compared to the FSP Model.


Business as Usual Model (BaU)

            Architectural Firm (4 People, including architects and engineers)

            Lending Agency (1)

            Building Contractors

            (Land Preparation - 3)

            (Code Enforcement - 1)

            (Carpenters, Electrical, and Mechanical - 20)

            The Business as Usual Model will employ a minimum of 29 people to build a school within 2 years.
The Focused Strategic Planning Model (FSP)
The FSP paradigm discussed in this article will require the number of workers listed in the above section (whatever number of people it turns out to be), plus the people listed below to implement the FSP Model.
Regardless of the number of people required for the Business as Usual Model, add the following professionals to implement the Focused Strategic Planning Model:

            Educational Planners (2)

            Facilitators (2)

            Recorder (1)

            Curriculum Experts (One per subject area - so let’s use 6 in this example)

            Forecasting Student Population (1)

            Area analysis and demographic analysis (3)

            Professional cost estimator (1)

            Educational Specifications (2)

            School Transportation (1)
            Incorporating this model requires an additional 19 professionals and approximately 2.5 years from beginning to building occupancy.


The Sting of Reality
The FSP model employs 19 additional people in this example.  The increase in participants is from 29 people, including 4 architects and engineers, to 48 needed to complete this school project. 
In the FSP Model we are reducing the architect’s responsibilities and fees and allocating the difference to be applied through sound, research-based concept design principles in the FSP Model. 
Traditionally 6% of this total project cost would have been for architectural fees ($420, 000.00) under the Business as Usual Model. 
Working under the FSP Model, reduce the 6% for the architectural firm (4 people) to 4% ($280,000.00) and allocate 2% for the FSP professionals ($140,000.00). 
This redistribution of responsibilities and money provides an average of $7,368.00 per FSP worker and $70,000.00 per architect and engineer. 
The construction cost is constant, regardless which model is selected.
The FSP Model adds credible input from educators and community stakeholders, and as a side effect, it spreads the wealth around.

Conclusion
Historically, the architect was hired upon the recommendation of the educational planner, after educational programming (defining the educational program and curriculum, teaching, and learning, strategies, etc.) was completed.  This is rarely the case today.  With the loss of the educational planning functions, we have also lost most of the community and school participation in planing and designing our schools. Perhaps the excellent benefits of the Indiana School Survey Movement of the 40's and 50's and the Educational Facilities Laboratory of the 60's ,70's, and 80's can be restored by giving educational planning back to educators.  The popular James D. McConnell Award was a result of the educational planning movement that lasted from the 40's through the early 80's in the United States.  President Obama's support for enhancing the educational infrastructure in the United States can bring educators back into educational facilities planning, and improve learning environments for all students through FSP.
-------------
This is copyrighted material.  Its contents may not be copied or distributed in any form.  Linking to the article on the TFPG Internet site is permitted from web sites and in formal presentations. 
© TFPG.org

 

Contact the Author at TFPG

Thank you for visiting TFPG.org.