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.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15