Building affordable schools

WITH THE COSTS of building schools in Massachusetts skyrocketing, the state cannot afford the "edu-palaces" some communities want, replete with extra municipal amenities such as swimming pools and hockey rinks. The state created the Massachusetts School Building Authority to rein in cost overruns, and state Treasurer Timothy Cahill is appropriately focused on creative approaches to bring school building costs under control.

Those of us who design schools across America have learned valuable lessons - some good, some bad, and some we can do nothing about. For example, with the rising cost of energy, the cost of construction materials has also risen sharply. But there are elements that can be contained.

First, as Cahill suggests, the cost of a community's educational needs must be separate from its broader municipal needs. If a community wants a pool, it needs to disconnect it from school building budgets.

Second, the bidding procedures and construction management systems need to be moved into the 21st century, by allowing for "construction managers at risk" and a review of construction bidding procedures that currently disconnect the general contractor from subcontractors, dramatically diminishing control over the schedule, quality, and cost overruns.

Third, the state should develop a "best practices" program and a centralized "clearinghouse" that offers cost-effective school designs. This allows communities to review cost-appropriate design components without being compelled to build a school designed to meet another community's needs.

Fourth, the state should consider the proposal by architect Charles Thomsen for the "rotation" of good design concepts developed in one project that can be carried over into multiple projects. Key is the maintenance of "continuous working standards," updated by a central program manager who incorporates new best practices in design, as they emerge in individual projects. Thomsen argues, ". . .standards shouldn't be static; they should be a platform for continuous improvement."

And then there is the concept of "model schools." The argument is that a good but affordable school should be designed and replicated from town to town. This seems simple, appealing, and can help certain communities. We should try it where we can. But as the saying goes, for every complicated problem, there is a simple and often equally wrong answer.

Massachusetts is not Kansas. It does not have flat open land. The topography, geography, geology, and transit issues change from town to town. What fits one tight space with one access point may not fit another with different mapping. If communities are pressured to relocate schools to open space on the outskirts of town, they will cut into green space and put more children on buses, the antithesis of smart growth planning.

Furthermore, there isn't a statewide education plan to which every municipality conforms. Some towns place a premium on more science and lab space, others need vocational training, others need language or art. Town educational priorities are not all the same, nor should they be. Schools aren't warehouses. They are places for children to learn, to be inspired, and to have access to ever-changing technology, teaching strategies, and information that grows exponentially each year. There is no "one size fits all" model, and every change in a "model" has a ripple affect making savings illusory.

Model schools have been attempted in 25 states, with limited results. The problem with "off the shelf" designs is they are static. Today's "model" school uses plans developed five to 10 years ago. It may look good, but building codes have changed in terms of energy efficiency, accessibility, and dimensional restrictions, not to mention local changes affecting special needs, class size, and curriculum.

Cahill and the Massachusetts School Building Authority deserve great credit for taking on the task of controlling school building costs. They are right to pursue a pilot plan for model schools and employ them where they work. But the state must look at other elements of school building design and the construction process that can save greater taxpayer dollars. It must modernize the construction bidding and management practices; develop a centralized design clearinghouse to rotate "best practice" ideas; and build energy-efficient schools that dramatically reduce operating costs for decades to come.

Diane Georgopulous is president of the Boston Society of Architects.