Links
NCEF
Ed. Spec. Resources
Educational Environmental Program
Sponsor:
C/S Group
The global innovator in architectural specialty products.
Educational Specifications
Forum
Originated June 2002, new material added
03/20/2003
Randall Fielding, AIA, Editor
Commentators and Links to Postings
Bruce
Jilk | Prakash
Nair | Henry
Sanoff | Jeff Phillips | Jack
Flynn | Michael
Sharp
Robert Matschulat
| Nair Response to Matschulat
Flynn response to Matschulat
| John Gray | Gloria
Mikolajccky
Robert Matschulat |
Kathy McWilliams |
New Michael Sharp
This forum sprang forth from a round of e-mail messages between Bruce Jilk, Randy fielding and Prakash Nair. The conversation continues, featuring commentaries by Henry Sanoff, Jeff Phillips and Jack Flynn. Contact information for all participants is included at the end. We intend for this to be a living document, and invite your comments, so let's hear from you!
What's an Ed Spec?
An Ed Spec (also referred to as a program) is a detailed narrative,
developed to guide the design process. An Ed Spec typically includes a summary
of the educational organization's goals or mission, a list of rooms and
sizes as well as descriptions of site and spatial characteristics.
Ed Specs are often developed
by educational facility planning specialists. Many educational planners
are also educators; some are architects.
There is a wide range in the quality, process, length, and cost of developing
an Ed Spec. Some Ed Specs are brief outlines - a wish list for the
client. Other Ed Specs involve diverse groups of stakeholders, take
a year or more to develop, and cost over $100,000.
Cleaning House
Bruce A. Jilk
The following is a personal reflection on the Ed Spec, a product of a planning process that becomes the base of a school design concept. First here are two thoughts:
1. At the UIA/UNESCO conference in Porto last year, architect Anton Schweighofer (Austria) stated
that good learning environments would be the same as good libraries, good stores, or good gas stations. In other words, these places evolve out of broad set principles that are based on human qualities. Any document, Ed Spec, or what ever you care to call it, that frames the
design of a learning environment around only a "functional" interpretation of a curriculum will lead to failure.
2. As I think back on the school projects I've been involved in over the years, the bigger the Ed Spec, the
poorer the design. My best designs came from
two- page Ed Specs (the Zoo School, Iceland) or one page (Finland). This points to what we would call the
"Law of Inverse Returns."
Reflecting on both of these thoughts leads me to the conclusion that
the best Ed Spec is no Ed Spec! Let me start with a little history. I worked on my first real school project (in the trenches) in 1962. This was a new high school. There was no Ed Spec or Program. We just worked it out. This was my experience for the next ten years. In 1972 I went to work for Hammel, Green and Abrahamson. At that time they were the top school design firm in Minnesota. They also had a NYC office where they were doing "Store Front" schools. For my 20 years at HGA we never (except toward the end) had more then a two or three page space program. Many of these projects were award-winning designs. The space program listed the areas for departments or clusters, but did not go into any more detail. Toward the end of that time I did one project with a detailed program. This was at the insistence of the principal who was a detail kind of guy. It took about 20 pages to list and size the rooms for this nearly 500,000 SF project. In about 1992 I did a middle school in the Chicago area that, at the demand of the client, included an Ed Spec. This was my first such project. It was mostly written by the teachers.
30 years doing schools without an Ed Spec and only a "sketch' of a program! Why should we not think of doing a school project without an Ed Spec or program today? Ed Specs are something that is being imposed on school districts and architects by the educational facilities planners. This has become more prevalent in the last 10 years (I believe the Ed Spec concept is about 40 years old). It would be interesting to study the history of EFL in relation to CEFPI. One survived and the other didn't. What if it had been the other way around?
"The institution of learning must have in its mind - must have in its sense - the realm of spaces which are good for learning, and not a program which says that you must have so many of this, or so many of that, but a realm of spaces which you feel is sympathetic to learning." Louis Kahn
Here is how I see the problem. Ed Spec people (who certainly can make positive contributions) are experts in education who follow their "cookbook." This is organized around functional aspects of the parts of a school. Many school architects, bonded to corporate profit goals, provide a service to put those parts together in a way that is also functional (cut and paste is like magic). The municipal sewer system is a good metaphor. Although schools need to be functional, they also need to be much more then that. Neither the "cookbook" nor the profit motive will support this higher need. The next problem we have is this focus on the parts and not the whole. This is true of both the Ed Spec and cut and paste design. Schools need to be seen as a whole first, as pasts second. In addition is the problem of the disconnect between the client (user) and the architect. The process of having specialists who collect information from the client, write it up and pass it on to the architect may be efficient but it is not effective. Finally, and in my mind most important, it is rare that you will find any of these players capable of understanding and designing to the relation between space and its effect on the behavior of learning. All of these things need to be fixed. Working together we need to create places that not only house learners; they need to be places that evoke learning.
"If you get a program from a school board, the first thing it will say, in our country, is that it must have a nine foot fence around it - wire fence - and that it must have stainless-steel doors and the corridors must be no less than nine feet wide, and that all its classrooms must be well ventilated and have good light and all be certain size. They will give you many things which will help the practitioner make a pretty good profit out of his commission by following the rule of rules. But this is not an architect at work. An architect thinks of a school possibly as being a realm of spaces within which it is well to learn. I think schools, for instance, have now gotten away from the original spark of the existence will or seed of "school." Louis Kahn
We need to have accountability from school architects as well as facility planners. Therefore I would also like to comment on the architectural design of new schools. In a word, most school architectural design is repulsive. There are a number of factors behind this but the one I will address is the fragmented approach. This is driven by the Ed Spec tendency to focus on the parts. Design a gym block, an academic block, and an arts block. Throw them together (curved corridors are cool!) and you're in business. Align the front masses and you might even get an award. This award can be assured if you dress up the facade with a pediment over the entry and some stupid brick pattern. A few pseudo columns with fat capitals won't hurt. This aesthetic works because this is a new variation on regionalism. I call it the Ubiquitous Suburban Style Regionalism (USSR - appropriate because school design today is like Russian housing of the cold war: no matter where it is, it looks the same). Next, make the school blend with big-box suburban retail, and no one will give it a second thought. This is better (and therefore the award) than the schools that don't blend in and are painfully harder to ignore. Of course the thousands of parking spots in front are a no-brainer in this style of design. The other good news here is that those folks that have taken the "School as Prison" design approach are very passé. This is progress. We will take what we can get.
"One asks ones self how it became possible that man today is no longer able to create the very thing the great gift of consciousness should enable him to create: an environment in which he is able to live with dignity and assure survival without losing his identity." Aldo van Eyck
Some of our society's values that have become of prime importance to educators revolve around the concepts of honesty, trust, integrity, and ethics. In light of recent news reports that range from students' cheating on tests to the destructive behaviors of corporations like Enron, and Anderson, it is no wonder that schools feel compelled to emphasize these values. School architects and educational facility planners need to model the highest level of these values as well. Although we have good intentions, I believe we have been sweeping our share of dirt under the rug. It is time to clean house!
"To thy own self be true" Shakespeare
Prakash Nair, RA, REFP
I read through Bruce Jilk's ideas on the Ed Spec and, like everything he writes, it triggered some thoughts of my own. First, Bruce says he has worked for 30 years without having to do an Ed Spec. - or maybe he did one but who's counting? I wonder how many architects and school planners doing work today can make that claim. I suspect very few. The reason? Not necessarily that these people are in love with the Ed Spec (ok, so some of them are), but because an Ed Spec or some close cousin of the Ed Spec is not just expected, but required in most jurisdictions.
I have worked with several large school districts where the Ed Spec is written into law - examples include the States of New Jersey and Florida and New York City - which is kind of like a state, only bigger. In fact, Florida requires that all schools start out as prototypes! Districts must jump through hoops and prove they need a custom design to get away from prototypes. The State even makes monetary awards and gives out gold seals to school districts that build the cheapest schools. Goodbye brick, hello stucco! That takes the Ed Spec problem one step farther because, now, it is not just the requirements that are standardized, but the design itself. Sorry architect, that little informal seating area you "borrowed" from the grossing factor - no good. Not prototypical.
Are we surprised? We shouldn't be. Isn't pretty much everything in education about standardization anyway? The stuff that Bruce is talking about - personalization of learning - is something progressive educators like to talk about but the reality is that 99 out of 100 schools are still pretty much where they were fifty years ago. The Ed Spec is a symptom not the problem. When Bruce's ideas become mainstream, the Ed Spec will disappear because it will no longer be needed.
We know that the progressive clients asking Bruce to design their schools will take their cue from him but most individual architects and planners do not have any say in this area - particularly when it happens to be the law. This is the reason that organizations like CEFPI and AIA can take a stand. They can become advocates for the position that to start out with a document like the Ed Spec makes the whole design process a sham. It is like putting a straitjacket on creativity - small wonder that architects have to be content to win awards for pediments and curved corridors!
The Government of Western Australia is one of the first large-scale organizations to allow its new schools to grow organically out of a community consultation process. I'm lucky to be working on a school in Perth that began with just a rudimentary two-page generic goals document. The school evolved at various levels simultaneously. That means, the architects took their cues from consultations with stakeholders who in turn drew inspiration from what the architects were sketching. At the same time, the educational folks were designing their curricular approach (I said approach not content) tied to what the rest of the team was coming up with. The principal and staff of the school will be picked not only for their qualifications, but also for their openness to new ways of thinking. The school when done will be unique not just because it started (and will probably end) without an Ed Spec, but because such a document was never really needed as a basis for developing it. This is almost identical to another school I worked on in Tasmania, where, again, the Department of Education threw away the school-planning manual and came to the table with a blank slate. Both these schools will look completely different than their traditional counterparts but neither will cost any more money - sorry guys if I took away your last piece of cover.
Today, the Ed Spec is nothing more than the memorialization of good practice - or so the rationale goes. "Why reinvent the wheel? One science lab is as good as another and one classroom in neighborhood A does not have to be a different shape or size than the other in neighborhood B." That line of thinking is fine as long as we are content to build the same school over and over again. Bruce, if they are going to do that anyway, you have to at least allow them to play with the brick patterns (except in Florida where they can trowel designs into the stucco). Of course, the best practice rationale runs into trouble if you ask the question, "But do you need classrooms and science labs in the first place?" When was the last time anybody asked these kinds of fundamental questions about schools?
I wrote a whole piece entitled, "But Are They Learning?" I have to repeat here that if a school client started with that question, the Ed Spec would go quietly away - and who would mourn its passing?
Prakash,
Some comments on your response to "Cleaning House":
1) I am pleased that my essay caused you to think. I do not propose that others do as I suggest so much as that they actually think about what they do.
2) We need to stop finding excuses for not doing better. Too bad the Ed Spec is the rule (law or policy) It isn't in Minnesota. There was a time it wasn't the rule and there will be a time in the future when it won't be the rule again.
3) As you point out the money excuse is used to justify all kinds of mediocrity (not just facilities). But this thinking is total B.S. The real measure society wants is "How much Learning per Dollar." When we "clean house" this is the kind of dirt the politicians and the education bureaucracy have hidden.
4) Standardization. Robert Reich covers this nicely in his new book "I'll Be Short."
5) 99 out of 100. Do not underestimate the change that is going on in education. Your framing of the issue is misleading. It's not like in 5 years it will be 98 out of 100. This suggests an either/or situation. As I told you in Amsterdam there is strong growth in school choice. More and more parents are home schooling or sending their kids to charter schools, private schools, parochial schools, virtual schools, schools for profit, etc. The traditional public school may well remain as they are today, but they will have a smaller market share.
6) Both CEFPI and AIA perform in the interest of their members, not in the interest of those affected by what their members do. In the case of schools, these associations, through their members, use kids to justify there being.
7) Straightjacket on creativity. I agree, but why does it go on some damn easy?
8) I am glad you refer to your "But Are They Learning?" piece at the end. Everything you mention before is about the adult or institutional perspective. Focusing on the leaner is where the conversation needs to go! And be advised, to make this shift also means to shift from a modernist world of iron clad logic and rational to one characterized more by feelings and compassion - or from using kids (as so many planners and architects do) to caring about kids (as so many teachers do).
The future is what we make it. The problem is not if we should make it my way or your way. The problem is we are not engaged in making it any way. It is just too easy for the lazy to follow the rules.
I like all your responses but would like to go one more round on your point five as follows:
Agree that the number 99 out of 100 may be misleading. While there are real studies out there which show that only one in 100 schools is learner centered, your point is well taken. As alternatives begin to proliferate, the traditional school’s proportionate share of the overall education piece will continue to shrink.
You will recall the Committed Sardines analogy I like to point to (http://www.thecommittedsardine.net) There is no question that a new way of thinking is taking shape - in the world of education in general - and gathering influence to the point where it is certain to quickly attain critical mass. That can happen when just 5% - 10% of this world changes. The new examples produced as a result of innovations will be dramatically different and successful by a whole new set of measures. And there will, literally, be no choice but for the larger establishment to try and move as a whole in a different direction. What will happen is that as the larger institutions struggle to redefine themselves, smaller offshoots (call them charters or whatever) will make them less relevant if not obsolete.
I agree that it will NOT be a linear move from the old paradigm to the new. While the change need not be revolutionary, though it might well be, I have no doubt that what we call innovative today will be pretty commonplace less than five years from now. That means, 60% - 70% of all new places for learning will be guided by personalized learning in student-centered environments. The future will have little use for the standardized Ed Specs as they exist today. At least that is what I believe.
Bravo!
First, it is necessary to distinguish between a program and ed specs, in spite of the fact that there are people that cannot distinguish the difference between the two. I will quote from my book, METHODS OF ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMING (1977. "A program is a communicable statement of intent. It is a prescription for a desired set of events influenced by local constraints, and it states a set of desired conditions and the methods for achieving those conditions.
The program is also a formal communication between designer and client in
order to determine that the client's (as well as non-paying client) needs and values are clearly stated and understood. It provides a method for decision making and a rationale for future decisions. It encourages greater client participation , as well as user feedback. The program also serves as a log, as a memory, and a set of conditions that are amenable to post-occupancy evaluation."
Ed specs, on the other hand, are standards that are unrelated to the context (site, user population, etc.) Consequently, the outcomes are predictable, and have very little relationship to educational goals. Ed specs are standards, mostly antiquated since they are modeled after the one room schoolhouse, and are not based on research. There is no research that suggests that an elementary classroom should be larger than a middle school classroom. These standards are based on a curriculum model that requires elementary students to remain in their classroom for the entire day, while middle and high school students frequently change classes. The standards are also based on a fixed population, consequently there are over as well as under populated classrooms.
After recently completing an elementary and middle school classroom addition, it was impossible, for example, to discuss learning centers in a middle schoolroom, because the specs (which are emphatically enforced in many school districts) restricted the size. Consequently, in spite of the teachers concern for teaming and exploring other modes of teaching, the ed specs became a straight jacket.
The gap between how children learn and what actually happens in today's
classroom creates enormous frustration for educators. Eliminating ed specs
would no doubt be equally frustrating for administrators planning school budgets, but what an opportunity to approach the design of a school
considering educational goals for starters.
Team Leader, Research & Development
Department of Education, Perth WA
Greetings all from Perth,
Western Australia
Prakash mentioned that he has been working with us on a new school where
we started not with an Ed Spec, but a couple of pages of generic goals.
This is a fairly common process used by the Department of Education in
Western Australia and has come about from a belief that there is no
"one-size-fits-all" architectural solution to educational
facilities provision.
The goals set down while pretty generic, are in fact up for debate and it is this process, conducting an educational debate with the school community that engages architect, educator, parent and student in defining their signature (per Bruce Jilk) It's a long process, we resource it well but there are often some nervous moments, particularly for parents and teachers challenged to leave their comfort zones. To me that is what the Ed Specs represent, someone's comfort zone, particularly when you are about to spend $25M of taxpayers money on a new school.
Maybe its Western Australia's geography and history that supports the risk of leaving a comfort zone to explore new frontiers. I think there are some good navigation tools available now, and asking people for directions rather than giving them map certainly makes the journey (process) an important part of the destination (solution) Christopher Columbus found his way to the New World by Dead Reckoning (knowing where you've come from) so I think case studies are essential home ports. However instead of the case study focusing on the architecture of the last school built, why not focus on the process, the questions, topics, agreements and disagreements that lead to the school's design and see whether these can be tested again.
Many schools in Western Australia are quite individual yet they all meet the Ed Specs. The reason for their individuality can be attributed to the different points we were at in the educational debate when it was closed off and the documentation started. It is not because we have changed the Ed Specs to increase or add more area from the last school built and therefore have a new model for future schools.
Committed sardines are never comfortable, are they Prakash?
Vice President, Kiernan Corporation
Cinnaminson, NJ
The discussion on Ed Specs is very interesting but complaining about Ed Specs is like arguing against the Rocky Mountains. You may feel better but it doesn't do much good.
As Prakash Nair correctly indicates, the Ed Spec is, in most states, a legally required part of the school construction project application. In New Jersey, the Code, which was revised in October 2001, not only calls for an Ed Spec but details the content. The requirements, incidentally, are essentially those included in Bruce Jilk's definition.
In July 2000, the New Jersey Legislature passed a $12 billion school construction bill. There are seven state agencies involved in the administration of the program. As the lead agency, the Department of Education established a procedure in which the proposed construction must respond to a prototypical facility "model" that reflects what are called "Facility Efficiency Standards" (FES). The FES lists the number, type and area of the spaces to be included in the proposed facility. Any space not included in the FES or area in excess of that listed in the FES is not eligible to be included in the calculation of state support. The result is not only the sameness alluded to by Nair in "But Do They Learn" but the creation of a bureaucratic morass.
I disagree with Bruce Jilk's comment that Ed Specs are imposed on school districts and architects by the educational facility planners. The application process and all documentation requirements adopted by the New Jersey DOE, including the Ed Spec, were formulated by architects.
In my judgment, as the level of state support for school construction increases across the country, the Ed Spec requirements will become even more burdensome and restrictive.
In your Amsterdam Watershed piece, the forum participants discussed the implications of anticipated societal and cultural changes on education and education facilities. Bill Djong made comments that I believe are relevant to this discussion. He said, " The forces of mass production of new and renovated schools, turn over of leadership, pressure to get the job done, persons planning and designing schools with little or no experience or understanding of education, all point to minor improvements to the current mold."
I believe that DeJong's observations are right on the mark and that, as Prakash Nair proposes, the Ed Spec mentality is a symptom of a larger problem, but I don't believe that the AIA or CEFPI are the vehicles for arriving at a solution. I would suggest that until education professionals break out of their comfort zone and take greater responsibility for the planning and ultimate effective utilization of their facilities, there will not be enough "committed sardines" to change direction.
Dear Readers,
Please direct your comments to the editor, or to the commentators and copy the editor.
Randy Fielding, Editor, fielding@designshare.com, bio
Bruce Jilk, bajilk@attbi.com, bio
Prakash Nair, Prakash@designshare.com, bio
Henry Sanoff, henry_sanoff@ncsu.edu, bio
Jeff Phillips, jeff.phillips@eddept.wa.edu.au
Jack Flynn, jflynn6222@aol.com
Robert Matschulat, AIA, CSI, CCS, CEFPI, rmatschu@jeffco.k12.co.us
designshare.com | June 2002 | next >