| |||||||||
| ||||||||||
INTRODUCTION Requests for a recommended number of gross square feet per student are a common occurrence at CEFPI Headquarters. Based on responses from its Design Portfolio winners over the past five years, the following revised square footage numbers per pupil are those we currently provide upon request, noting, however, that these averaged numbers do not reflect the type and scope of the educational programs those buildings house—a distinct missing link. These averages and ranges are now reported by geographic areas to take into account differences in square footage caused, primarily, by temperature and weather influences.
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL Having a set of national averages can be a helpful starting point in planning or as a means of assessing total space. Making estimates based on these numbers alone is NOT a guarantee that you will have a good working facility, however. What is most important is to have a clear understanding of the educational specifications, the programs to be housed in the facility, and the impact they may have on the instructional space. To quote CEFPI member, Dr. Harold L. Hawkins, “A school building does not merely house the instructional program, it is part of the program.” FLEXIBILITY AND MODERNIZATION The importance of flexible instructional space has been discussed for some time. Educational programs change, different teachers want different room configurations, new instructional methods create new tasks, student numbers rise and fall, technology changes, budgets shrink, districts merge—these are but a few of the factors which impact the instructional space. In the private sector corporate environment, it is common practice to reconfigure 30% of the workspace annually. These space changes are made to accommodate changes in the tasks being performed and to enhance both productivity and the overall work environment. In the educational environment, however, few teachers and students have an opportunity to experience a reconfiguring of the instructional space, to have an opportunity to enhance their productivity and working/learning environment. If such changes are important in a corporate setting to assist productivity, and if one of corporate America’s major concerns is the school-to-work transition, then it seems appropriate to maintain flexible instructional space. CLASS SIZE DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE Educational facility planners also should be aware of a recent article raising, once again, the issue of class size. In the July 12, 1995 issue of Education Week (pp 33-35), a research article by Debra Viadero, entitled “Less is More,” argues for smaller class sizes by citing the conclusions of a two-phase longitudinal study on class size begun in 1985. Conducted in Tennessee, the four-year Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) and its follow-up project, Lasting Benefits Study, tracked the effect of class size on elementary students and concluded that:
Although challenged by some critics, the results of both studies were sufficient to warrant the Tennessee legislature in 1989 to set aside funds to reduce class sizes in K-3 in 17 of the state’s 138 school districts with the highest levels of low-income students. This, of course, begs the question, should classroom size be reduced if the number of students to be accommodated is to be reduced? The Tennessee studies never address this issue. CEFPI’s recommendation is that, based on the issues of flexibility and modernization addressed above, school districts are better served overall when they do not reduce classroom size. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITY PLANNERS Results from these and other studies on class size are likely to be debated for years to come. The real question for educational facility planners is how to respond to the often conflicting demands placed on instructional space—how to satisfy both district and taxpayer demands for quality instruction on ever-shrinking budgets. There are, it seems, two important implications for educational facility planners:
The initial consideration, whether building new or renovating an existing building, is the development of a vision statement of the nature of the educational programs to be used in the facility. The vision statement should contain a view to the future, both a short-range and long-range plan, and anticipated steps to achieve those instructional goals. Then planners, using an “average” building and the suggested average square feet per student listed above, can begin to make adjustments based on inquiries about the ed specs, adding or subtracting space as necessary. In fact, responses to these inquiries may suggest features which would not be required or even desired in the building originally envisioned. It is clear that this is not a quick, easy approach for the planner who wants immediate answers to set up a financial plan for construction. The point is—there are no quick, easy answers—not even when preliminary estimates of space needs are found to be inadequate once actual planning begins. This process is time consuming but it is time well spent! FACTORS INFLUENCING AREA PER STUDENT Of the many factors which can influence the number of gross square feet needed per student, the following three merit special attention:
While there are numerous program characteristics that can influence the space per pupil, listed below are some broad topics planners should consider when making program inquiries: *
After the programs have been defined, if not before, it is an important planning technique to ask the question: “What conditions in our present structure(s) inhibit the delivery of the instructional program, inhibit learning, cause operational problems, or create problems related to the economy of the operation?” Number of Students A building needs the capacity for future expansion or modification to meet fluctuating student numbers. The following factors are likely to have initial cost implications for planners:
Characteristics of the students occupying a given structure require attention to size and location of equipment, toilets, furnishings, wall-mounted writing and display surfaces, cabinets, and the size of building features, in general. While there is no guarantee that a specific building will always be used for a given group of students, it is better to plan for a given group of students rather than trying to make most features convertible and then never experience a change. DEVELOPING EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS The initial phase of any planning process should be the development of educational specifications with the involvement of the staff. In reality, ed specs, when approved by the governing board, become the educational facilities problem to be solved by designers or architects. They become the instrument used by staff and the board of education to analyze architectural proposals. And while response to initial inquiries and the development of ed specs takes time up front, it is time well spent!  PARTICIPATORY PROCESS PLANNING OF EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS CLOSED PROCESS—A—B—C—D—E—OPEN PROCESS
A. Architect/Administrator Input and decision making primarily in the hands of two or three professionals. Only token efforts to solicit ideas from the direct user group.
B. Small Team Expertise carefully solicited from individuals with established knowledge and experience. Consensus decision making tends to be highly centralized.
C. Select Group Differs from large group in that there is broad representation by a few people with recognized expertise. Group brought together for intensive, carefully organized decision making.
D. Large Team Includes designated central administrators, building level administrators, teachers, staff, students, board representatives, community representatives, consultants and architects. Emphasis is on broad-based input consensus development. Work of large teams may extend over weeks or months. Decisions are usually conventional and user supported.
E. Open Team Technique stresses participation of the diverse components of the community affected by the building program. Community involvement is aided by professionals. Brainstorming often serves as a catalyst for change. Public support is generally enhanced. ISSUETRAK is prepared by The Council of Educational Facility Planners, International as a service to its membership. CEFPI wishes to thank Dr. Arthur Wohlers of Planning Advocates, Inc., Delaware, Ohio, for his invaluable time and expertise in preparing this brief.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
