|
 |
Unlocking the Myth of Educational Specifications As all of us in public education know, even commonly used and easily understood phrases and buzz words can have different meanings and interpretations. A specific item or term may be viewed differently by different individuals based on their own personal exposure and experiences. One of those terms happens to be “educational specifications.” Many, though not all, architectural firms hold and present a different meaning than the meaning held by majority of educators who are experienced in planning and construction of school facilities. Architects normally equate educational specifications to the specifics of building design, such as whether or not a specific classroom needs a sink, or how many students a certain building needs to accommodate. Architectural firms prepare, in much detail, what they perceive to be educational specifications. But what they prepare is generally a mere inventory of the specific design items that would be needed to serve the needs of the school (and classroom) based on the currently existing educational program. They seldom involve educators in the development of educational specifications; much of the input they do receive come from design professionals, engineers, and facilities and maintenance staff. Educators, on the other hand, tend to believe that educational specifications should be more expansive and inclusive. Their view is that the educational specifications should be used for the purpose of having educational program drive the facilities program -- a much discussed but infrequently practiced concept. This belief might have come from our desire to find a higher purpose in everything we do. It is, nonetheless, very practical and grounded in reality. Not only should the educational specifications address the needs of the current educational program, they should anticipate and provide for the future changes in the programs, instructional methodologies and delivery. Hence, it is of vital importance to include instructional and program staff, the school community and, where appropriate, the wider community-at-large in the development of educational specifications. Through the involvement and participation by teachers and administrators, one can get an idea of future modifications and changes in the programs and their delivery, which may impact design of the facilities. Also, ever-evolving role of public education may necessitate additional buildings to serve new needs. The collective thinking of educators and school communities help ensure that facilities stay responsive to program needs for many years into the future. For example, we continue to see elementary schools designed and constructed with no significant provisions to house preschool programs. Anyone who has been involved in public education over the last decade or so has heard the discussion about the universal preschool, and would have realized the facilities needs. In short, educational specifications should be a program document that drives the facilities planning process, instead of a document with project-specific design features. In selecting a planning consultant for the development of a facilities master plan, the district administration should discuss how a certain firm defines educational specifications. Remember, the facilities we design and build today will be serving children for next 40 years or more. Editor's Note: Tahir Ahad is the President of the educational consulting firm, Total School Solutions. |
|
