It doesn't take a crystal ball to see construction--or at least renovation--projects in your school district's future. According to estimates by the federal government, districts around the country have accumulated about $100 billion in renovation and construction needs. But even in this booming economy, school construction dollars are scarce, and districts cannot afford to make wrong decisions about where to renovate, expand, and construct schools.

In 25 years of working with school systems, I've found the key to making smart decisions lies in comprehensive planning. Failure to take a long-range view of a district's needs often results in a patchwork of poor and inefficient decisions. Relying on faulty data or failing to examine alternative solutions can lead to expensive, irreversible mistakes: schools built in the wrong locations or on wrong enrollment projections; money wasted on expanding or renovating buildings that needed to be replaced; superficial renovations that quickly deteriorate when a more thorough job could have added 20 years to a building's life.

A comprehensive planning process--one that identifies problems and alternative solutions, then develops a sensible course of action--can help districts avoid these kinds of mistakes while assuring the most effective results for your school construction dollars. But what is a comprehensive planning process, and how do you develop one?

You can start by thinking of your district's buildings as one side of a triangle. The other sides are educational programs and student demographics. Buildings are simply platforms to support programs and to house students. Comprehensive planning means people on all three sides of the triangle work together to identify and meet the district's needs.

Unfortunately, in many districts, planning falls to specialized committees. A curriculum team, for instance, might suggest major changes, including new magnet schools, smaller
student/teacher ratios, and a new program for science instruction in the high schools. The team plan might be educationally sound, but far too costly in terms of facilities and student reassignments to be adopted. Or, if the plan is adopted, very little might come of it due to all of the unanticipated problems that appear.

Similarly, simply surveying buildings to estimate repair and expansion costs is not a sufficient basis for a cost-effective building program. Because any problem can usually be solved in several ways, all three legs of the triangle need to be considered. Overcrowding, for instance, might be solved by adding classrooms, reassigning students, building another school, reassigning some special classes, removing students that rightfully belong in a different school, changing grade structure, using classrooms more efficiently, replacing the school with a new and larger facility, or combining several of these steps in ways that involve other schools.

A comprehensive planning process calls for a team effort that crosses lines of responsibility and expertise. An effective working committee might include, for instance, a planning facilitator and personnel from curriculum and instruction, facilities, transportation, maintenance, and finance. Each person brings a specialized knowledge and point of view, allowing the committee to develop alternative solutions to complex problems.

When I work as the planning facilitator on such teams, I'm careful to guide the group through a structured decision-making process that's designed to ensure the best use of tax dollars. The model we follow is simple, yet it works very well:

1. Assemble basic data. The tendency is to hurry toward solutions before problems are clearly identified. But until you have surveyed all buildings and established priorities that everyone can understand, how can you say that certain renovations are needed? Without good enrollment projections and a student-location map, how do you know where, exactly, classrooms are needed? And if students are attending schools out of their assigned zone, how do you know where facilities are truly needed? A basic survey of programs, demographics, and facilities takes some time, but it can be a real eye-opener to everyone involved. The sidebar on page 38 offers examples of questions that need to be asked and answered.

2. Interpret the data to outline needs and objectives. Do not confuse problems with solutions or rush to a solution before the problem is understood. Define each problem in terms of programs, demographics, and facilities that will be needed over the next five years. (Projections beyond five years can be very unreliable.) Try to think in terms of both quantity and quality. You might need 90,000 square feet to handle the enrollment at a new elementary school, for instance, but what kind of design will best enhance the programs you want to offer?

3. Develop alternative plans to meet needs and objectives. Seldom is there only one solution to a problem, even when renovations seem necessary or a facility seems overcrowded. Use the good database you've amassed to develop alternative solutions to each problem. These alternatives in programs, demographics, and facilities become the building blocks that can be combined to form alternative plans. Five-year plans give you a good horizon for developing plans that can be realized.

4. Assess alternative plans. Look at the costs and benefits of each plan. Adding classrooms to a building might meet the need for more capacity, for example, but the cost will include more than the price of building a new wing: You'll also have to pay for enlarging the food-service space, the media center, the office space, and the parking area. Experts should be brought in to evaluate the consequences of various proposals. You might learn, for example, that extensive renovations of an old building will require obtaining a new occupancy permit--which means considerable additional expense to meet current building and fire codes. Under those circumstances, it might be less expensive to build a new school that could solve space problems at other schools as well.

But the new school means changing student assignments--which proves there's nothing simple about discussing the costs and benefits of various alternatives. That's why it's good to solicit public participation, which can range from a citizens' advisory committee to a series of public meetings where alternatives are discussed and comments are solicited.

5. Select a plan. Use the assessment of costs and benefits to rank the alternative comprehensive plans. The usual pitfall at this stage is to let an assumed available budget drive the overall plan, so the discussion becomes, "We have $2 million. What should we do with it?" Basing a decision on the money available often means eliminating a better alternative that could work if implemented in stages, as the money becomes available. It's important to keep your eye on the district's needs. Setting the budget as the ultimate control often results in a penny-wise and pound-foolish program of quick fixes that bear no resemblance to a cost-effective process.

6. Complete plan details. Develop an implementation plan, including all the details of timing, financing, institutional changes, and dealing with anticipated impacts as the work develops, such as reassigning students. Watch for the many pitfalls at this stage. A bond-financed construction program might be subject to arbitrage, for instance, which means the construction must be substantially completed within a given time period. A large building program might be difficult to complete within the arbitrage period without careful scheduling, and accelerating the work to meet the deadline might mean the district incurs increased costs. Knowing about these problems ahead of time helps you keep projects within budget.

7. Adopt a plan. This stage encompasses everything from obtaining board approval to promoting a bond issue based on the plan. If the board and the public were involved during the planning process, then you've been working on adoption all along.

8. Begin implementation. At this point, the planning committee hands over responsibility to an implementation committee to oversee the construction program. This transition might involve some of the same people--or at least people with the same expertise--but should also involve a construction-management consultant and others who have experience in school construction. It is also wise, at this point, to appoint a citizen oversight committee to serve as public liaison on such matters as site locations and program changes.

9. Review and update your plan annually. Inevitably, student demographics change, new needs arise, and programs require reassessment. Planning is a continuing process that does not end with a final report. Exercise good business judgment by keeping your database current and annually updating your five-year plan.

Construction projects are not the only district business that can benefit from comprehensive planning. I've used this technique to help some districts, such as Kansas City, Kan., prove they no longer need court supervision of desegregation plans. (See "Planning Your Exit" in the January ASBJ.) Almost any problem becomes more manageable when districts bring together people from different disciplines to gather information, evaluate alternatives, and develop a comprehensive plan. The question is not whether your school district has time to engage in comprehensive planning. The question is, how soon can the process begin?

Get the facts

Good plans begin with reliable facts. That's why a comprehensive planning team needs the authority to request and obtain timely, accurate information from every department in the district.

What kind of facts does a planning team need? The answer can vary widely, depending on the needs and goals of the individual school district, but some questions are standard:

• What are the enrollment projections by grade at each school for the next five years?
• Where do students live? A demographic map should show present and planned residential development.
• What are the district's student-transfer policies, and how are they enforced?
• How are students assigned to schools? What are the possible alternatives?
• How many standard and portable classrooms are at each school?
• Are standard classrooms used for anything other than standard instructional programs? If so, itemize what the classrooms are used for.
• What is the history of major repairs and renovations at each school for the last five years?
• How much do plant operations and maintenance cost at each school? Figure both the overall cost and the per-student cost, including administration.
• What specific renovations are needed at each school? How much will each project cost? Categorize the renovations according to whether they would meet life-safety code, maintain building integrity, support programs, or just be "nice to have."
• What is each school's enrollment capacity and site acreage? Could the building be expanded?
• What is the square footage of each school's core facilities (media center, food service, music space, etc.)? How does that compare with state or other standards?
• What are the needs of special programs such as magnet schools, Title I, and special education? Examine each program's mission, methods of delivery, planned program changes, and future space needs.
• What kind of changes are envisioned in the curriculum?
  Examine the rationale for the changes and their probable impact on the capacity, modifications, and design of future facilities.
• What is the financial basis for facilities planning? Document current funding sources, current debt obligations, and estimated funding sources over the next five years. Don't forget such sources as grants, special allocations, the possible sale of surplus facilities, and joint operations of some facilities (such as sharing the cost of a gymnasium with the city).
• Are there any special considerations that bear on the planning process, such as time lines, personnel participation, a review process, or school board and public involvement?
• Are there any basic institutional planning criteria such as policies on transportation, right-size schools, evolution of programs, or special concerns that led to the planning process? These criteria will undoubtedly change over time, which is why the comprehensive plan should be revisited every year.
  

Kelley D. Carey, a nationally recognized expert in comprehensive educational demographics and facilities planning, is president of Associated Planning & Research, Inc., on Hilton Head Island, S.C.

 

Copyright © 2000, National School Boards Association. American School Board Journal is an editorially independent publication of the National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed by this magazine or any of its authors do not necessarily reflect positions of the National School Boards Association. Within the parameters of fair use, this article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise, linked, transmitted, or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6739.