Jack Flynn, REFP
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.

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