Architect:
HMFH Architects, Inc.
130 Bishop Allen Drive, Cambridge, MA  02139
Principal-in-Charge: Steven Friedlaender, AIA
Educational Planner: Laura Wernick, 617-492-2200, wernick@hmfh.com
Contact: Susan Elmore, Marketing Manager, 617-492-2200,        elmore@hmfh.com | http://www.hmfh.com

School Contact:
Central Tree Middle School
285 Main Street, Rutland, MA
Alfred Tutela, Superintendent of Schools
Contact: Jim Purington, Building Committee Chair, 508-886-2386
Site Development Cost: $1,680,000
Fixed Equipment Cost: $252,370

Associate firms and product information is listed below Planning Principles.

Planning Principles:

1.       How does the project enhance learning (and teaching), and support the needs of all learners?

The three primary ways in which the building was found to matter most—that is, support and in some cases, enhance the delivery of the middle school curriculum were:

Scale.  The scale of the building was important in a number of ways including the fact that by being relatively compact, the school provides a comfortable transition between elementary and high school.  Additionally, administrators and teachers reported that when the facility is more compact(as compared with their previous school) it is more supervisable.

Physical Organization.  The most important way the physical organization of the building was found to support pedagogical goals was through the layout of classroom clusters.  These provide a homebase for the students, corridors which are supervisable, and become social and academic extensions of the classroom space.  Increased contact—both formal and informal—between teachers enables them to team teach and provide interdisciplinary instruction.

2. How does the design reinforce the school as a center of the community?

The building was designed to be inviting to all members of the community.  At Central Tree, parents are first greeted by a series of bright blue banners hung from street lamps in the parking lot declaring the school’s goals:  R.E.A.C.H. for Excellence.  The building has a strong, but friendly exterior presence.  Upon entering the building parents are received in an open reception area.  Chairs and a table provide a place to sit and feel welcome.  Additionally, attractive conference rooms in which teachers, parents, and students meet also make the point that parental involvement is important to the school’s philosophy.  As a sixth grade teacher said:  “The main entrance to the building is visitor-friendly.”

3. Describe the planning/design process and who was involved.

The planning process initially involved the architects working with the Superintendent, administrators and staff to develop a series of basic design Principles. These Principles evolved from a strong sense on the part of the educators of what was needed to support a middle school program and what worked and did not work within the District’s other middle school.

A Building Committee made up of parents, educators and community members was established.   The architect presented a series of alternative approaches to achieving the Principles to the Building Committee.  The Building Committee developed and approved detailed decisions based on how those decisions might impact the Principles.

4. How does the project provide for health, safety and security, beyond standard approaches?

Passive security measures were designed into every aspect of the building. The layout of the building is designed to assure complete visibility of all student access areas at all times.  Administrative functions are divided up on both floors to assure administrators in addition to teachers, are available to supervise students.

Each grade level is formed into a cluster or “neighborhood”.  Teachers within each cluster can easily supervise all the students within any area of their cluster.  Location of interior windows and locker lay outs reinforce the design intent.

5. How does the project enhance the use of all available resources?

There was a serious need within the community for recreational fields and for public access outdoor space.  The school was landlocked and was very restricted by adjacent topography and wetlands. A single crossing of the wetlands was allowed to grant access to the site.  The wetlands disturbance was mitigated adjacent to the crossing.

Through terracing the site was maximized for school and community atheletic and recreational fields.  A nature trail developed through the wetlands allows use of the wetlands area for both teaching and recreational purposes.

6. What unique strategies allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing needs?

The overall project was design was intended to allow expansion of the academic wing as student population increased.  So there is built in adaptability for future growth.

Associate Firms:
Construction Manager:  Fontaine Brothers, Inc.
Mechanical:  TMP Consulting Engineers, Boston, MA
Structural:  Foley & Buhl, Watertown, MA
Photography:  Wayne Soverns, Jr.