Stock Plans: Bad for Schools
http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/schoolstockplans.pdf
(American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC , 2006) Presents the position of the American Institute of Architects concerning the use of standardized or stock school plans. According to the AIA, a total of 25 states have used standardized plans for school buildings. All 25 states abandoned the idea of using standardized plans "when the school district realized they were losing money and receiving inferior product." 1p.
Is Re-Use Appropriate For Your Project? [PowerPoint Presentation] http://www.cashnet.org/resource-center/resourcefiles/312.pdf
Dunston, Dennis; Lesher, Dana
(C.A.S.H. Workshop on the Re-Use of Plans, Dec 2003) Looking at both design and construction issues, the advantages and disadvantages of re-using plans are described and recommendations are made. 4p.
The Call for Prototypes
Monser, Bob
School Planning and Management; v42 n8 , p12 ; Aug 2003 This discusses some of the problems and benefits of using school design prototypes. Many school planners agree prototypes work best when a school district is planning to build multiple schools quickly and has abundant land. The use of prototypes by the Wake County, North Carolina Public School System is described.
TO ORDER: School Planning and Management, Peter Li Education Group, 2621 Dryden Road, Suite 300, Dayton, OH 45439; Phone: 937-293-1310; http://www.peterli.com/spm/index.shtm
Prototype Schools Presentation.[Presentation at CEFPI Conference] http://www.cefpi.org/member/eseries/earthman_handout.doc
Earthman, Glen I.
(Council of Educational Facility Planners International, Scottsdale, AZ , Oct 23, 2003) This paper presents the findings of a survey considering these two questions: 1) can prototype plans be a viable device in alleviating classroom shortages in some school systems? and 2) can the use of prototype plans provide any savings in time and money? The data presented were the perceptions and beliefs of superintendents, educational planners, architects, and engineers. The author provides the following recapitulation of his findings: "Prototype Building Plans are probably useful only in a few school systems. These school systems are the ones that need new school buildings on a continuing basis year after year. The way prototype plans are used in such school systems vary according to the specific site and locality and there will in all probability be a variation on how the prototype plan will be employed." 11p.
Standardizing Schools. Can Prototype Schools Work for Everyone?
http://asumag.com/mag/university_standardizing_schools/
Rydeen, James E.
American School and University; v75 n1 , p50 ; Sep 2002 In the author's opinion, educators and designers must stay flexible. Standardizing some systems and components may make sense, but compromising design or forcing standardized design in an attempt to save an insignificant amount of time and cost may significantly impair long-term use.
---------------
Citations concerning state and local efforts to implement prototype programs.
MASSACHUSETTS
MSBA Model School Pilot Program Request for Services (RFS) http://www.massschoolbuildings.org/main_ektid724.aspx
(Massachusetts School Building Authority, Boston, Jul 09, 2008) Invites submissions from design professionals for services designing a model high school that might be adapted and re-used by other districts. The program seeks to pre-qualify the designer of each selected model school. The Massachusetts School Building Authority, in collaboration with school districts participating in the pilot program, would select one of the pre-qualified model schools and its designer through a separate, competitive process and the school district would enter into a contract with the selected designer. The designer of the selected model school would adapt the design to a suitable site within the school district and tailor the design to the required design enrollment and programmatic needs of the district. The goal is to minimize redesign of the selected model school and maximize the value of an existing proven design. 42p.
For additional information contact:
Katherine Craven, Executive Director
Massachusetts School Building Authority
40 Broad Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-720-4466
Fax: 617-720-5260
Email: Katherine.Craven@MassSchoolBuildings.org
NORTH CAROLINA
Prototype Plans. Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.schoolclearinghouse.org/otherinf/FAQ/FAQPROTO.htm
(North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2007) Includes answers to the following questions: What is a Prototype School Design? What are the potential savings of using prototype plans? What are the other advantages of prototype school designs? Are there disadvantages? Why are Prototype Plans better than Stock Plans?
To view prototype plans go to:
Elementary Schools http://www.schoolclearinghouse.org/elem.asp
Middle Schools http://www.schoolclearinghouse.org/middle.asp#banner
High Schools http://www.schoolclearinghouse.org/high.asp#banner
Making Plans for School Designs of the Future.
http://www.schoolconstructionnews.com/ME2/Audiences
DePatta, Joe
School Construction News; v9 n2 , p30,31 ; Mar-Apr 2006 Presents an interview with North Carolina's chief of school planning, in which he discusses North Carolina school funding mechanisms and priorities, prototype schools, trends in K-12 school design, and CPTED.
“Q: What is the North Carolina Prototype School Design Clearinghouse?
A: A number of years ago there was a bill in the legislature to establish stock plans. At least in North Carolina virtually every school is a different size in terms of ADM. We have three different major climatic zones, mountains, the piedmont and the coastal plains. If you are using stock plans, you will probably have to have 70 or 80 stock plans. I believe California tried that in the 1960s or '70s. They staffed way up and hired a whole bunch of architects and engineers and then ended up with one stock plan that was never built. As a compromise, we worked with the legislators and the North Carolina AIA and a couple of other groups. Prototype plans are used frequently in the state, especially in the Local Education Agencies. They've got to build three schools a year so they use the same plan. Individual architects have posted those plans on our Web site and they have said they are willing to build them in another county or wherever. It's being used quite a bit. The individual architect retains ownership of the plans and if another LEA is interested in them, they contact that architect to adapt those plans for their use. “
For additional information contact:
Steve Taynton, AIA, Chief, School Planning North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street, Suite 7066
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-807-3560
Fax: 919-807-3558
Email: staynton@dpi.state.nc.us
Website: http://www.schoolclearinghouse.org
NEVADA - Clark County School District
Prototype Schools.
http://nsfp.ccsd.net/prototypes.htm
(Clark County School District Facilities Division, New School & Facility Planning, Las Vegas, NV , 2007) Includes photographs, design criteria, service standards matrix, and student triggers/yields for prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools
For additional information contact:
Timothy Strucely, Director, Facilities Division, Planning and Design Clark County School District
4292 South Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-799-1195
Fax: 702-799-6455
Website: http://nsfp.ccsd.net/
WYOMING
Wyoming School Facilities Commission Allows More Flexibility in School Designs.
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/11/20/news/casper/21751240538de4ee87257398008175e8.tx
Santos, Jasa
Star Tribune; Nov 20, 2007
The Wyoming School Facilities Commission decided to rework its policy requiring districts to use one of six prototypes for building new elementary schools. The commission in 2006 approved six prototypes for districts to chose from, with the idea that doing so would cut down the time and money spent during the building process. The policy needed an update to allow for more flexibility in designing, said Ken Daraie, director of the School Facilities Commission. "It's neither saved us time nor money," Daraie said. "I think it meant well, but it didn't ultimately serve its purpose." Five of the prototypes were developed using designs from elementary schools around the state, and the sixth came from a school design in Shelley, Idaho. Concern over the prototypes not working for every building site was also expressed by those at the meeting.
Wyoming Mandates Prototype Schools
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/12/06/14facil.h26.html
Greifner, Laura
Education Week; v26 n14 , p13 ; Dec 06, 2006 This reports on the decision by the Wyoming School Facilities Commission that all new Wyoming elementary schools must be built using one of five to seven prototypical designs. The article summarizes some pros and cons of prototypes. Critics of such plans say that they don’t allow enough flexibility to meet the needs of individual schools, and that the money saved in planning doesn’t outweigh the cost of adapting a generic school to the specific conditions of the location.
For additional information contact:
Ken Daraie, Director
School Facilities Commission
1920 Thomes Avenue, Suite 200
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Phone: 307-777-8670
Fax: 307-777-8674
Email: sfc@state.wy.us
Website: http://sfc.state.wy.us/
IOWA - Sioux City
Prototype School Design Concept Unworkable.
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/05/14/news_opinion/ask_jeannette/5a38bfbd9b5bedaf862572da0083bea0.txt
Lubsen, Jeannette
Sioux City Journal ; May 14, 2007
After the 1 percent local option sales and services tax was passed in 1998, the Sioux City School Board investigated the concept of a prototype design for middle schools and elementary schools. The conclusion was a prototype design concept was unworkable for several reasons and the architectural consultants working with the board agreed with the conclusion.
For additional information contact:
William Stoneburg, Chief Financial Officer
Sioux City Community School District
1221 Pierce Street
Sioux City, IA 51105
Phone: 712-279-6663
Website: http://www.siouxcityschools.org
KENTUCKY
Kentucky Senate Bill 231 (2006)
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/06rs/sb231.htm
“AN ACT relating to school facilities construction.
Amend KRS 162.060 to require that the commissioner of education establish a school facilities design team by October 15, 2006 that shall promote and establish a school building model design program by July 1, 2008 and that encourages local boards of education to use existing school building designs in order to realize a reduction of design and construction costs and to assist in ensuring educationally functional buildings*”
Development of Stock School Plans. AIA Kentucky States Strong Opposition. Position Statement on Senate Bill 231
http://www.aiaky.org/byMonthNewsArchive.php?recordDate=2006-04-05
(American Institute of Architects/Kentucky , Mar 2006)
Kentucky Senate Bill 231 seeks to establish a “school building model design program” for Kentucky schools, as a means to reduce the cost of school construction. AIA Kentucky opposed SB 231 for the following reasons: 1) good design can lower construction costs and help lower the life-cycle costs that occur once the facility is in operation; 2) use of stock school plans will not eliminate the need for architectural and engineering services; 3) stock plans do not create standard schools; 4) stock plans have failed in other states; 5)question of liability; and 6) stock plans limit competition among building product manufacturers and suppliers.
For additional information contact:
Mark Ryles, Division of Facilities Management
Kentucky Department of Education
500 Mero Street, 15th Floor CPT
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502-564-4326
Email: Mark.Ryles@education.ky.gov
Website: http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Facilities/default.htm
NEW MEXICO - Albuquerque
Albuquerque Public Schools to Use Prototype Design for New Elementary Schools
http://ww2.aps.edu/cgi/displaypress2.cgi?662
Albuquerque Public Schools Press Release; Dec 20, 2006
Albuquerque Public Schools have received proposals from several architectural firms to design a prototype that will be used for construction of the new elementary school in Albuquerque’s Northwest side and in at least four other elementary schools. The typical prototype design lasts about five years because teaching methods, technology, curriculum as well as advancements in construction change and make the prototype obsolete.
For additional information contact:
Karen Alarid, Director, Facilities Design & Construction
Albuquerque Public Schools
915 Oak Street SE
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: 505-848-8818
Fax: 505-246-9020
Email: alarid_k@aps.edu
Website: http://www.apsfacilities.org/
CALIFORNIA
Prototype School Designs Website [Defunct]
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/opsc/Publications/Newsletters/AA_2005_02.pdf
(Advisory Actions 2005, State Allocation Board, Issue 2, March/May 2005)
“The Prototype School Designs Web Site was established by the State Allocation Board and Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), in May of 1999, as a comprehensive source of school planning and design information. The Prototype School Design database is a valuable resource of recently approved school plans; these include site plans, floor plans, construction data, school and architect contact information, and construction cost detail*”
Architectural Plans - Copyright Legislation [PowerPoint Presentation]
http://www.cashnet.org/resource-center/resourcefiles/310.pdf
Dunston, Dennis
(C.A.S.H. Workshop on Re-Use of Plans, Dec 2003)
This presentation deals with California's Education Code 17316 (a) (b) (c) which states the contractual relationships between the architect and the school districts regarding the reuse of plans. 4p.
Educational/Cost/Maintenance and Other Benefits of Re-Use of Plans - Case Study 1: Elk Grove Unified School District. [Powerpoint Presentation]
http://www.cashnet.org/resource-center/resourcefiles/313.pdf
Moore, Kathleen; Rainforth, Michael
(C.A.S.H. Worshop on Re-Use of Plans, Dec 2003)
This case study includes Elk Grove’s history of re-used plans and points to consider. 4p.
Educational/Cost/Maintenance and Other Benefits of Re-Use of Plans - Case Study 2: Witter Ranch Elementary School, Natomas Unified School District. [Powerpoint Presentation]
http://www.cashnet.org/resource-center/resourcefiles/314.pdf
Jones, David
(C.A.S.H. Workshop on Reuse of Plans, Dec 2003)
This case study about re-use of plans includes district goals, process, results for Witter Ranch Elementary School, community compatibility, and lessons learned. 5p.
For additional information contact:
Rob Cook, Executive Officer
Office of Public School Construction
State Allocation Board
1130 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814-2928
Phone: 916-445-3377
Email: rob.cook@dgs.ca.gov
Website: http://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov
Fred Yeager, Facilities
California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-327-7148
Email: fyeager@cde.ca.gov
Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/
ARKANSAS
Prototypical Building Designs.
http://www.arkansasfacilities.com/pdf/WhitePapers/White%20Paper%203%20-%20Prototypical%20Building%20Designs.pdf
(Arkansas General Assembly, Task Force to Joint Committee on Educational Facilities, Little Rock , Aug 16, 2004)
Summarizes Arkansas' feasibility study of prototype school designs, including lessons learned from ten other states' programs. The report concluded that prototype designs were not suitable for Arkansas, most notably due to the state's rural nature and the need to build creative facilities that accommodate a wide range of community uses. 10p.
For additional information contact:
Dr. Charles Stein, Assistant Director, Academic Facilities & Transportation
Arkansas Division of Public School
501 Woodlane Street, Suite 600
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 501-682-4261
Fax: 501-683-1200
Email: charles.stein@arkansas.gov
Website: http://www.arkansasfacilities.com
GEORGIA
Implementing Education Reform
http://childwelfare.net/activities/legislative2002/FY2003.gov/contents/initiative1.pdf
(Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic, Emory University School of Law, 2003)
p. 4 “Finally, Governor Banes has instituted a prototypical school design program and library, which provides a 2% reduction in local systems match to state funds for schools
that employ a prototype school model for school construction. A design is considered a prototype if it has been built two or more times in Georgia, has a similar layout and the gross square footage and number of classrooms do not vary by more than 10%. In total, from the FY 1999 Amended through the FY 2003 budget, Governor Barnes has put over $1,180,000,000 in bonds, lottery funds, and cash toward K-12 school construction which has helped build over 11,650 classrooms*”
For additional information contact:
Lynn Jackson, Director, Facilities Services
Georgia Department of Education
1670 Twin Towers East
205 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: 404-656-2454
Fax: 404-651-7688
Email: lyjackso@doe.k12.ga.us
Website: http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/
VIRGINIA
A Feasibility Study for Model School Design Plans. Report of the Department of Education to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia. Senate Document No. 8.
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/SD82002/$file/sd8_2002.pdf
(Virginia General Assembly, Richmond, 2002)
Virginia Senate Joint Resolution No. 400 requested the Department of Education (DOE) to study the feasibility of the commonwealth providing model school design plans for elementary, middle, and high schools. The resolution further requested input from school divisions and other interested persons. As a result of this request, a sample of school division superintendents, educational facility planners employed by school divisions, architects, and engineers were surveyed relative to their positions on the feasibility of providing such plans. The survey asked about the feasibility of providing such plans, whether or not the commonwealth should do it, and the possibility such plans might have for providing economies for school divisions. In addition, the respondents were asked about the impact model plans might have on community involvement in the planning process. The use of prototype school building plans also was investigated. The results of the survey indicated that there was not a clear picture on the use of model school plans. The superintendents and educational planners believed such plans might be feasible and useful, but the architects and engineers thought differently. The majority of all group respondents believed model school plans developed by the state would not fit the educational needs of a school division. Further, there was some concern that if such plans were used, community involvement in the planning process might be limited. (Appendices contain school divisions surveyed, survey instruments, comments, DOE facilities cost data, recommended prototypical space programs, and Resolution No. 400.) 92p.
For additional information contact:
June Eanes, Director, Office of School Facilities Services
Virginia Department of Education
James Monroe Building
101 N. 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: 804-225-2035
Fax: 804-786-9417
Website: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/facilities/index.shtml
TEXAS
A Look at Prototype Versus Site-specific Building Design
http://web.archive.org/web/20040828213432/http://nancypappas.com/Articles/School+Construction/School+Bond+Construction/Focus+on+Facilities.htm
Reynolds, Craig; Lamkin, Lisa W.
(Texas Assn. of School Boards, Austin, TX, Jun 1998)
Texas Lone Star; v16 n5 ; Jun 1998
Provides tips for determining what school design is best for meeting the unique needs of a particular school district. Building toward educational goals and weighing the use of a prototype design versus a site specific design are examined.
-----------------
Here are some state level clearinghouses on school design:
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania School Design Clearinghouse.
http://www.sdcpublic.ed.state.pa.us/PublishScreens/wfSDCHome.aspx
Showcases school building designs that meet cost efficiency and design standards established by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The site is designed to provide the public, school districts and design professionals access to design and cost information on recently completed public school construction projects. All project buildings on the website have been completed and occupied for at least one year. For each project cited, project cost,construction information, and photographs of the site and school are also included.
FLORIDA
SMART Schools Clearinghouse [ARCHIVE]
http://smartschools.state.fl.us/apps/smartschools/school_www.home.home_page
The SMART Schools Clearinghouse Board sunset June 30, 2001, and the Clearinghouse functions transfered to the Department of Education. The total School Infrastructure Thrift (SIT) allocation was $350 million. Currently, there are no funds left for distribution. The legislature has not appropriated any additional funds for this program.
Frugal Construction Standards
http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/smartschools/construction_standards.pdf
(SMART Schools Clearinghouse, Tallahassee, FL , Jan 25, 2000 )
For more information, please see the following NCEF resource list:
Prototype School Buildings
http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/prototype.cfm
(National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC)
NCEF's resource list of links and journal articles showing examples of state and municipal prototype school designs and discussions on implementation of prototype standards.
