Article summary

vgirldesir

Week6article.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Article summary

American School Board Journal � www.asbj.com � October 2009 37

Perhaps more than anything, the break-

neck speed of technological advances has

put the issue squarely under the micro-

scope. The capacity to retrofit classrooms

for Internet and networking connections,

video, and data ports has challenged dis-

tricts with how to prioritize basic repairs,

remodels, expansions, and the ultimate de-

cision to raze a building and replace it with

a new one.

Sometimes it can feel like the decision-

making process is random, with, forgive the

pun, the squeakiest wheel often winning the

competition for limited district dollars. But

a squeaky-wheel approach to facilities re-

pair is an inadequate way of distributing

limited funds. In Minnesota’s Saint Paul

Public Schools, we serve 40,549 students in

73 district-owned instructional and admin-

istrative campuses (7.3 million square feet).

Our department receives about $230 million

of yearly upgrade and remodeling requests.

Our budget is $30 million.

To approach this ongoing disparity

thoughtfully and responsibly, we decided it

was time for a facilities master plan, which

would forecast and establish capital im-

provements and deferred maintenance

needs for several years. Because the district

established a new strategic plan in 2007 and

was embarking on a large-scale systems

change, the timing was perfect to marry our

facilities conditions assessment with an ed-

ucational adequacy assessment.

FORECASTING EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

An educational adequacy assessment

bridges the gap between a district’s facilities

and its educational standards and goals. This

was the first time that we directly linked the

degree to which a school’s facilities could

adequately support its instructional mission

and methods. As an example, if we plan to

expand a school’s burgeoning music pro-

gram to better serve students and families,

then that school first must be assessed based

on its capacity to integrate features such as

soundproof practice studios or adequate re-

hearsal and performance facilities.

If the studies deem the building inade-

Mastering the Plan To ensure facilities are maintained equally, you need to be systematic in your assessment

Hitesh Haria

RMA Photography, Inc.

B roken windows, peeling paint, and leaky roofs are all part of the never-

ending maintenance cycle of school buildings. Yet, not until recently has

the state of a building and its grounds been fully understood in terms of

its impact on student learning.

ASBJ Special Report: Facilities & Construction

Mother’s Club Family Learning Center in Pasadena, Calif., received a citation of excellence for green school building of the transformation of a 10,000-

square-foot factory into a learning center.

38 American School Board Journal � www.asbj.com � October 2009

quate for remodeling and expansion, then the

question will be whether another building

should carry the music program or the current

building should be rebuilt or reconfigured.

Obviously, these considerations carry seri-

ous financial, educational, and emotional

weight. But the educational adequacy assess-

ment asks the critical questions often over-

looked by a facilities condition assessment:

What needs to be done to bring a particular

school to a standard of adequacy that meets

educational and instructional needs? At what

point does a school’s inability to meet educa-

tional needs mean that it should be replaced?

To comprehensively assess educational

effectiveness, you must first understand the

components that affect the instructional pro-

gram. These components are formulated into

educational adequacy assessment guidelines

that broadly fit into eight major categories:

� Capacity

� Support for programs

� Technology

� Supervision and security

� Instructional aids

� Physical characteristics

� Learning environment

� Relationship of spaces

The data from this standards-based as-

sessment gives administrators a big picture

that is objective and has been applied con-

sistently across all district facilities. The

data enable you to assign priorities district-

wide to the facilities that are most likely to

meet the educational needs of students and

support the district’s academic mission.

(See sidebar for tips on undertaking facili-

ties and educational adequacy assessments.)

INVESTING WISELY

Your community may be concerned about

the costs of conducting both a facilities con-

ditions assessment and educational adequa-

cy assessment. However, considering the

amount of money districts spend on facili-

ties upkeep and maintenance (in St. Paul,

it’s $240 million over eight years), it would

be a disservice to taxpayers to not undertake

an in-depth assessment.

The cost of the study was less than a half

a percent of the overall long-term investment

to be made in our buildings, which is an in-

expensive way to understand what you’re re-

ally doing. For smaller districts, the cost

would be less as the cost for an assessment is

typically quoted in terms of square footage.

While districts can continue to do a fa-

cilities conditions assessment without the

benefit of an educational adequacy assess-

ment, keep in mind that you’ll only be get-

ting half the story. An account of the health

of a building is important, but only so far as

it is directly tied to that building’s ability to

support the delivery of the programs within

the building. In other words, the facilities

conditions assessment tells you what is bro-

ken, and the educational adequacy assess-

ment tells you what is missing.

Remember that the deficiencies identi-

fied in these dual assessments can then be

combined with district enrollment projec-

tions to provide an overall facilities master

plan that can be the basis for a district-wide

facilities improvement funding strategy.

With this data-driven plan, it will be that

much easier to justify borrowing money to

repair, maintain, or build facilities.

By employing a comprehensive assess-

ment of your facilities first, you are taking the

time to ensure that repairs and expansions are

wise investments for your community. Doing

a million-dollar facelift to a school might oil

the squeaky wheel, but it will be a poor in-

vestment if you later determine that the build-

ing falls short of its potential to be adapted to

the growing needs of 21st century learners. �

Hitesh Haria ([email protected]) is the chief

operations officer of Saint Paul Public Schools,

St. Paul, Minn.

Tips on undertaking facilities and educational adequacy assessments It will cost you money if you don’t take the time to preplan. It’s critical that dis- trict leaders know how they’ll use the data: Will it inform a referendum, bonding authori-

ty, facility master plan, or prioritize projects for wise investments? Before embarking on

a request for proposal (RFP) process, research what other districts have done.

Be wary of firms that say they can do it all. It will take partnerships among a few specialized firms to undertake a comprehensive facilities and educational assess-

ment. In our case, there was a lead architectural firm that partnered with three national

experts to get the job done.

Be very specific about roles and responsibilities. Clarify what resources you have and don’t have and where you need the consultants to fill in the gaps. For in-

stance, we already had a lot of CAD data and drawings that we didn’t have to pay a con-

sultant to do.

Keep the data updated. The assessment is a snapshot in time as the condition of facilities are always in flux, so it’s essential to keep the database updated or else you’ll

have to repeat both the study and the initial investment.

Get broad input on the educational adequacy guidelines. Involve teachers, athletic directors, music directors, administrators, parents, and students to determine

the educational adequacy guidelines so that the study will reflect your school communi-

ty’s direct “on the ground” experiences and educational vision.

Be realistic about the timeline. For a district our size, it took a year—eight to 10 months, including the pre-planning, and two more months for the school board to ap-

prove the winning contract. If your RFP is lacking in important details, the timeline will

expand.