Educational Specification Forum

Links NCEF Ed. Spec. Resources Educational Environmental Program Sponsor: C/S Group The global innovator in architectural specialty products.		Educational Specifications Forum < back \| Section 3 John Gray \| Gloria Mikolajccky \| Robert Matschulat \| Kathy McWilliams Michael Sharp John Gray Individual experiences, good or bad are not the issue here - we all could quote horror stories of arrogant architects and arrogant facility planners. Briefing persons are usually hard working and conscientious, but from my perspective as an architect charged with implementing Ed Specs, Ed Specs are poorly structured, unreferenced, incomplete, inconsistent, repressive and contribute very negatively to what should be the common goal - to produce a better Educational Outcome. Even if Ed Specs could attain the utopian system goal of the perfect briefing object, it is my view that the more efficient and larger the Ed Spec could become, the less effective it would be in practice. One is reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby in the British Television "Yes Minister" comment on the Hospital in Britain that consistently wins awards for efficient operation, efficient maintenance, and lack of Industrial Strife - the hitch - It has no patients. The System is working and expanding but what is it producing? Ed Specs need to become more accountable, not less, and this does not mean that they have to enlarge their quantative scope but rather their qualitative content and their implementation context. At the moment they do not use research, or if they do, they don't reference it. Ed Specs take the arrogant view that all knowledge and ideas are equal and can be appropriated for any purpose without recognition of the knowledge source. This applies particularly to research from the social sciences. Rather than envisaging their role as facilitating the Design Process, Facility Planners, (the authors of the Ed Specs), see their role one of controlling those rascally architects and the mischievous school principals and staff who think they know everything and will get away with whatever they can cheat out of the system. This reminds me of another current British television series seen in Australia - "The Edwardian Country House" - in which the house rules attempt to totally control the sexual life of the footmen and scullery maids while permitting adultery "upstairs" This is an extremely poor and miserly way of existence for the servants and the masters who are in a real way also controlled and rule bound and it reflects an extremely poor and miserable view of knowledge, education and what it is for. I for one do not believe that Education should be "pain and misery" and neither should the Building implementation process contain "pain and misery" if it does, it will produce "pain and misery" as its outcome. The fact is we all have to "deal with it". "It" being the System. Facility planners have a responsibility to move from their current position of controllers to one of participants in and facilitators of information as teachers are doing. Architects will have to communicate in a more accessible language than obscure 2D drawings so as to fully document and share in the design process in an ongoing way. This is the challenge. We need the Planning Design, and Implementation Process to expand, not restrict the keys to knowledge and actively enhanse communication through and between Stages. A promising way to begin to achieve both goals is to change the genre of our facility briefing documents. An early experiment in this genre was the Architect Christopher Alexander's use of "A Pattern Language"(1). Jeffrey Lackney's "THIRTY-THREE EDUCATIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SCHOOLS & COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS" (2) as outlined at the last CEFPI Conference in May 2002 is another example that is grammatically structured to contain the clearly worded goal, explanation, rationale, recommendations and references in a complete package that is immediately understandable and accessible. Clearly these examples are just a beginning, but access to Information and Information Technology Tools both globally and locally can affect positively our bureaucratic tendencies to instruments of control and "misery" on the one hand and flights of useless and unreferenced "artistic" whim on the other. Neither Architect or Facility Planners will be able to hide behind closed doors and to continue the metaphor further - if we all build glass houses, stone throwing shouldn't be a problem. John Gray is an architect employed principally on Educational Building Projects for the past 12 years in a Queensland Government Business Unit. He has past experience in fabric design, printing, teaching, and as a registered builder. John has been recognized this year for varying architectural roles for Emmaus Primary School - Designshare Recognized Value award and Bentley Park College - 4 Awards including a Designshare Recognized Value Award, RAIA and a Master Builders Regional Award. johngray47@optushome.com.au References 1) C. ALEXANDER, S. ISHIKAWA, M. SILVERSTEIN, M. JACOBSON, I.FIKSDAHI?KING, S. ANGEL: A Pattern Language, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 2) Lackney Jeffery A. - THIRTY-THREE EDUCATIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SCHOOLS & COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS. Paper delivered at CEFPI 2002 research paper sponsored by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF). http://www.edfacilities.org/index.html
		Gloria Mikolajczyk Mr. Matschu I am an architect working for the Department of Education and although I am new to this particular position. I've worked with various organizations and architectural firms who either use Ed. Specs., prepare Ed. Specs. or review them. As an architect I've always marveled and reveled at the process of programming. Interviewing the users, clients, visiting spaces the client felt exceptional and also visiting the client's present environment always brought insights into how spaces could be arranged, spatial interaction and what solar orientation the building spaces were to take. I found this process indispensable. It produced a relationship with the client/user that only enriched the product - the building environment. When doing public school work, we were given an "Ed Spec". This document was a backbone, similar to our own human backbone. We all have one but no two of us are alike. I don't believe Ed Specs. foster cookie cutter designs if they are used as a means to provide a starting point. Shame on the architects who use it as such. By receiving this document it does not preclude that we, as designers, were not to engage in programming. It was viewed as a spring point, a guide, an attempt at least, to get all the players on the same page. In most cases I would have preferred, as an architect, to devise the "ed spec." myself and present it to the local governing agency. In today's day and time, the issue of checks and balances divides the "work" so no party has the upper hand or the "ear" of those in the financial arena. The ed spec allows governing bodies to put a "whoa" on administrators who may be overzealous in their list of needs or conversely provides aminimum set of requirements to provide some equity in a region. Where I see the disconnect in today's procedure is that boards of education who approve the ed. specs may not be privy to recent research which introduces state of the art thinking on school education, environment and learning. That is where groups like CEFPI and the AIA could target information dissemination and get these decision makers on board with where the environments of learning are heading. Gloria Mikolajczyk, R.A. School Facilities Maryland State Department of Education 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Ph# 410-767-0101 Fax# 410-333-6522 gmikolajczyk@msde.state.md.us
		Robert T. Matschulat Thank you for your comments. It sounds like we have much in common. I believe there are two core issues that run through this discussion: Design quality and educational change. First; Does design excellence come from creative inspiration or a collaboration? The two of us clearly align on the collaboration side. I, too, see ed specs as a "backbone" or framework. Good ed specs should actually make the designer's work easier by making the task more finite. I will concede, however, that there are many bad ed specs. In another context, I believe this identical conversation is occurring around the World Trade Center site. There, the issues are far more complex and emotional. The final design solution must address grief, pride, commerce, transportation, history, urbanism, skyline, patriotism and much, much more. Read the critique by Robert Campbell, FAIA in the August 2002 Architectural Record for an argument that is eloquent beyond my abilities. In it, he argues cogently for a design solution derived from "cumulative wisdom" as opposed to "avante-garde vision." Second; How do we best effect changes in education? You mention "state of the art thinking on school education, environment and learning." Many of the "constraints" in ed specs come from the teachers themselves. Their education and experience are based upon established pedagogy. I am not aware of any example where teaching or learning was changed through facility design, despite various attempts over the decades to do so. This is a classic "chicken and egg" dichotomy. Design can enhance or impede the process of learning, but not revolutionize it. Years ago, school districts decided to implement instructional technology by simply purchasing truckloads of computers. Most of these machines remained in boxes for years because the critical element of teacher training had been overlooked. Building designs that are too far ahead of their occupants tend to suffer a similar fate. Robert Matschulat, AIA, CSI, CCS, CEFPI rmatschu@jeffco.k12.co.us
		Kathy McWilliams Hi, I am a School Board member in Durham, NH for the Oyster River Cooperative School District which serves three towns. The district has an enrollment of 2380 students K-12 and population growth is level. I find your discussions both stimulating and informative. We have a space/capacity issue in our preschool-grade 8 that we are struggling with now. One of our ideas is to create a Science and Arts building away from the current two elementary schools and the one middle school with 5-8 configuation. We are thinking "outside of the box" with this concept. Currently art rooms exist in each school but no science labs are in existence until high school. We don't want to continue creating another elementary school that will stilll do much of the same and not create new learning opportunities for all students. A hands on facility with so called experts available for both students and teachers seems ideal. (We are located next to the University of New Hampshire.) It could be a community resource and a fee based service for the surrounding towns. I have concerns on how this would work logistically and if it can relieve pressure from the current buildings. Any amount of students out of any building during the school day would relieve pressure, I believe. What do you think of this concept? Have you seen it in action? This idea is truly based upon how children learn and what would benefit the most students. Thanks for you time, Kathy McWilliams kmcwilliams@attbi.com
		Michael Sharp December 13, 2002 In my previous article on the Ed Spec issue I rather sat on the fence, questioning who should be responsible for the writing of the ed spec not challenging the purpose of such a document. After many years representing schools and briefing architects and now working as an educational architect my firm conviction is that there must be a document, or rather two documents for two different reasons. Firstly there must be some sound educational justification to establish the overall requirements for the number, type, size, quality and ultimately the cost of the proposed objectives. This document is usually generated by a master plan that formulates a brief and budget, a commitment to improve the educational facilities over time. This might be called the “functional, or quantative brief”. Secondly there is the additional information to be communicates to the architect/designer that clearly describe in writing, diagrams and photographs the individual needs of a specific school community within the above framework. We might call this the “design, or quality brief”. Schools and individual teachers are involved in both areas and must accept the major responsibility to determine the design brief. But they need help. This doesn’t mean that the above order is necessarily mandatory or that the two are mutually exclusive. Both briefs must integrate to become the Educational Specification. Ideally the brief and budget should evolve from the school’s educational curricula objectives and teaching practices adapted to produce the best outcomes for their students. In many situations where internal funds are generated, such as in most private schools this is often the situation. However in a state system where students and teachers move about and adhere to a common curriculum and finally the same tertiary entrance examination there must be some predictability and commonality of resources. In our State system the functional brief precedes the design brief. The quality of teaching expertise and facilities should never be determined by a postcode. The question I posed, and was picked up by Jack Flyn in his recent article is the dilemma of how one supports individuals’ needs within a standardized, often very centralized state system. How can we achieve functional and flexible universal facilities that also respond to the specific need of the individual school community? Is the architect in the best position to formulate the design brief? How often have you walked a school and noticed the top third of the whiteboard is empty. On average male architects are far taller that female teachers, a common anthropometrical fact, but one among many often over looked. Architects are not educators and teachers are not architects, although many believe they have dual qualifications and experiences. A good specification is the nexus between the two, the checklist for both educator and architect to assess the facilities as they evolve at each stage of the process, not discovered omissions after the building is finished. Therefore schools must carefully choose your architect/designer well. They must be sympathetic, must listen, advise on alternatives options and most importantly have systems in place to manage the brief and tract changes against the brief and budget. Even though I have spent half a career in front of a class and the other half bending over a drawing board I still get it wrong. Just this week as the contractor began on site the technology teacher after months of discussing layout drawings finally clicked that the layout of the workstation, I designed for the students of this school was likely to encourage rather than discourage student miss behaviors. I had not understood her initial concerns and she couldn’t read my drawings, an expensive variation but a necessary one. As John Grey said in his recent contribution “architects must communicate in a more accessible language”, the communication between architect and client is critical. A very important part of the communication is a good specification. One that minimize miss conceptions that lead to constant changes. The brief should not be something we read up front and put aside after the early schematics, but something readily readable so both school and architect can consistently assess the progress against, and change when necessary as the project evolves. Should I dare say it; perhaps there is a role for a Project Facilitator, some neutral person with the experience of education and facilities provision who represents both parties. Many architects can and do take on this role and perform well, but I would suspect they are in the minority.
		Contact Information: Dear Readers, Please direct your comments to the editor, or to the commentators and copy the editor. Randy Fielding, Editor, fielding@designshare.com, bio < back \| designshare.com \| January 2003