The Council of Educational Facility Planners, International

The Council of Educational Facility Planners, International

Ohio School Facility Commission

Design Manual Evaluation

DRAFT Material Prepared by Molly Smith

Findings

Interviews were conducted over a period of four days. Two days of interviews were conducted with representatives from the Ohio State Facilities Commission (OSFC), and two days of interviews were conducted on-site with local districts involved in the recent implementation of the OSFC school building program.

Funding for the state’s schools is achieved through a formula based on Equity Aid Distribution (Not Sure if it’s called this) This formula determines a district’s eligibility for funding from the state as well as its portion of the total budget for school construction. Poorer districts receive larger portions of funding (as much as 95%) while wealthier districts receive smaller portions of funding (as little as 5%). This funding apportionment process has been working well thus far, due to the large percentage of funding provided by the state.

The Ohio School Design Manual was created to provide standard guidelines for the construction of new school facilities throughout the state. In general, the guidelines are of high quality and detail, providing guidance in the calculation of space as well as the selection of high quality construction materials and systems. The space and dollar allocations per square foot recommended by the guidelines are consistent with recommended national standards for school building construction.

The team noted that there is currently no approved statewide educational curriculum. In general, school construction guidelines must flow from the intended performance standards communicated by the educational curriculum. Without a statewide curriculum, guidelines cannot be fully evaluated as to their support of the intended educational outcomes. The team did note, however, that individual districts have articulated educational curriculum guidelines as they related to the unique needs of their community.

These characteristic needs are intended to serve a community’s economic, educational, and philosophic ideals. Local programs such as cooperative special education, Title One, drug-free programs, vocational agricultural programs, and federally funded class-size reduction programs all contribute to the district educational plan. It was noted by the team that, in order to create space for these programs in the state-funded program, districts had to “get creative” by calling these spaces by other names (spaces approved within the guideline document).

The district educational plan usually addresses a distinctive educational delivery approach tailored to meet the needs of local students and community. For example, many districts throughout the country have elected to adopt a modified calendar (commonly called year-round school). By doing this, 25% of the total student body is absent from school at any given time and school facilities are impacted by only 75% of the student body at any given time. Team interviews indicate that district education plan differences are weighted low in the overall master planning process with a district. “Adequate” and “Equal” are measured in terms of space and dollars rather than the overall application of appropriate space and dollars to the individual education plan of the district.

The overall building delivery process described by OSFC seems to be adequate and has been successful in the initial years of its implementation. Lines of communication between the State, the construction management firms, the architect, and the district are somewhat unclear at the present time. Local districts noted that, in order to fully understand the process and their rights, they must spend extra time studying the guidelines and making personal visits to Columbus.

The OSFC project managers and state-hired construction management firms have developed an organized and thorough system of assessment and facility delivery. Flexibility regarding various facility-related decisions throughout the process, once the initial space plan is approved, seems to be high. The team noted that local architects hired by the district seem to be less educated and informed about the overall process and rights of the districts.

The overall master planning process has, to date, been completed in large part by the state. It was noted that, while districts have been involved in key decisions such as school closures and consolidations, they were unclear as to their rights to reject certain plans. Further, while this process has been rather straightforward in the smaller districts, it will quickly become much more complicated in larger, urban districts. These larger districts have a higher prevalence of historical and community-based schools. It was noted by the team that no policies for historical or community schools has been addressed by the OSFC to date.

Initial startup of the OSFC program requires local districts to pass their portion of the state-mandated funding formula. To date, very few districts have failed to pass these bond issues.

OSFC representatives were unclear as to the fate of these districts should they continue to fail to pass their local bond issues. Similarly, sites for new construction must be provided by the local district. Several districts interviewed indicated that this was very difficult due to the initial cost of large tracts of land needed to build school facilities. It was noted with some concern that financially strapped districts may be lead to make unfavorable choices about school consolidations due to their lack of funds for land purchases. Ramifications of such choices could include higher transportation costs, longer commuting times for students, larger than average school populations, etc.

Interpretations of the guidelines were noticeably different from district to district and even amongst OSFC project managers. Some view the guidelines as absolute, while others believe they are flexible. In general, it was noted by the team that the guidelines were created as a “kit of parts.” These parts can be combined and recombined at will, but cannot be changed out for other, substituting parts. The team also noted the inflexibility in the “classroom” size guideline. While a district may choose to make these spaces smaller or larger by 10%, they may not choose to provide academic space for education in anything other than a “classroom.”

Differences amongst the 1998 OSFC Design Manual and the latest version have also created slight inequities amongst earliest OSFC projects and those being completed at present. The 1998 Manual does not allow for the funding of playground equipment, a budget for security, or book shelving in some classroom areas, while the current document does allow for these items.

The team noted that the overall formula for school construction funding does not create a “turnkey” solution for local districts. While the dollar allocation covers the cost of constructing the facility, built-in equipment, and some basic loose furnishings, it does not cover the cost of library books, pencils, paper, manipulatives, maps, globes, test tubes, basketballs, and other equipment essential to the delivery of a quality educational program. This presents major difficulties for smaller districts who do not have a ready supply of such items. A portion of these items can be relocated from existing facilities, but are usually inadequate to equip a newer, much larger facility.

Findings indicate some inconsistencies in the funding of renovation projects. On existing sites, ancillary district facilities demolished to make way for new school construction have not been funded for replacement. The burden for these replacement costs is borne by the district.

Other inconsistencies were noted in the funding of operations and maintenance. Newer, larger facilities generate much higher utility costs (as much as 300% increase in some districts), a need for more custodians, as well as more highly trained maintenance personnel. Current funding indicates that a district will utilize a ½ mill levy to be set aside for operations and maintenance funding. This paradigm creates woefully inadequate operations and maintenance funds for small districts. It was noted by the team that several of the districts interviewed indicated that their ½ mill would generate between $20,000 and $28,000. This funding will be inadequate to maintain facilities well over 100,000 square feet in size. Over a 30-year period, it is highly likely that the state will find itself in a similar position regarding school facilities as it does currently, because those facilities have not been properly maintained.

Comparison to Other States

In order to draw parallels between Ohio and other states, the team must consider programs created under similar circumstances and with similar achievement standards. One such state is Arizona. Arizona’s School Deficiency Corrections program was created through legislation called “Student’s First.” “Student’s First” originated due to a lawsuit in which local districts alleged that they would not be able to deliver an education to students as mandated by the state constitution because of inadequate school facilities and equipment. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed and mandated that the state create a deficiencies correction program to bring existing schools up to a minimum standard by the year 2003. Thereafter, it would establish a program to provide funding for a state mandated level of school facilities (a minimum).

By contrast, Ohio has created a full modernization program that goes beyond the establishment of a minimum standard and seeks to create a standard for adequacy and equity. This search for adequacy leaves the issue open to debate as to what is an adequate facility. National trends and guidelines must be examined and evaluated in order to make this determination.

Another area of contrast between the two states is the degree to which local funding is mandated. Arizonans passed a state proposition called Proposition 301 in order to fund the deficiencies corrections portion of their program. After 2003, the School Facilities Board of Arizona will allocate funding for new construction based on the growth needs of each district, projected out in five-year increments. In Ohio, local funding is expected in every district prior to the addition of state funds. If a district fails to pass their local issue, students will remain in inadequate facilities until such time as a local issue can be passed, if ever. Concern should be noted that this percentage of failure is bound to rise as the percentage of local funding versus state funding rises.

Flexibility in the standards of the two states can also be contrasted. The Arizona standard is strictly driven by growth projections, space allocation, and funding allocation. A minimum standard is established in the key areas of academic space, administration areas, science facilities, food service facilities, physical education space, libraries/ media centers, multipurpose areas, and vocational areas. A minimum quality is also established for lighting, acoustics, air quality, building systems, and structural soundness. These minimum standards allow districts the freedom to allocate space, and select materials and systems that support their own individual education delivery approaches. Each Arizona district may decide how to allocate academic space, and determine classroom sizes, numbers of classrooms, and the character of classrooms (open concept, traditional classroom, combined classrooms, etc.) This flexibility allows for a greater support of the districts’ educational mission. By contrast, the more prescriptive Ohio system makes assumptions regarding educational approach that may not support every districts’ mission.

The Ohio School Design Manual is a thorough and well-documented manual that can be very helpful to an experienced educational facility planner. Its detailed contents, however, can be misleading and seem restrictive to those school superintendents, facility managers, and architects who are less experienced. Many interviewees relayed that, by the time they thoroughly understood the process and the guidelines, their projects were well underway (too late to make changes).

The Arizona funding scenario provides for a total turnkey solution, whereas the Ohio funding scenario does not. Facilities are adequately funded under the system but site purchases are to be handled locally. Fixed equipment is funded whereas manipulatives and smaller equipment are not. Operations and maintenance are funded through local levies that will ultimately fail to provide adequate dollars for maintaining the high quality facilities currently being constructed. By comparison, Arizona’s per pupil allocation is small (many think inadequate.) However, Arizona’s Deficiency Corrections and New Construction programs are providing minimum facilities. These facilities are not as large or of the level that is being provided in Ohio. Therefore, operations and maintenance funding is smaller.

Strengths and Concerns

The greatest strength of the Ohio system is that it is a full modernization program and attempts to provide facilities designed to support education. This is a proactive approach versus one that is solely reactive to the DeRolph lawsuit. The Ohio School Design Manual is the product of thoughtful research and deliberation. It provides descriptions for those programs thought to be the basis of an average school instructional program. The space and funding allocations for those areas described within the manual are adequate when judged on a national scale.

The assessment process undertaken by the state has been thorough in its implementation and will prove to be the greatest asset in assessing the true cost of modernizing Ohio’s schools. Future budgetary considerations by the legislature should weigh this information heavily as it seems to be highly accurate and well-documented by qualified construction experts.

The OSFC staff is another strength that should be documented by this report. The team appears to be educated on modern school facility types, construction, and the peculiarities of the client group. Their open-mindedness is an asset to the process.

Concerns/ Recommendations

The lack of state-adopted educational curriculum standards was of great concern to the team. Without understanding the desired educational outcomes, it is difficult to assess whether the Ohio School Design Manual is providing the type, number of, or quality of facilities to support the standards.

Flexibility has been mentioned throughout this report by the team. The educational plan of the local school district must be supported by their ability to house and run programs to help them to fulfill their own unique educational mission. A prescriptive approach to educational facility planning cannot fulfill this mandate. An approach similar to Arizona, where the districts are given an allocation of academic space needed per pupil (i.e., for English, math, science, social studies, and language arts), as their only mandate, is greatly needed. This flexibility will allow for class size reduction and local educational approaches to be explored. In other words, formula driven guidelines cannot replace the importance of the need to support the local educational plan and local programs. Further, the character and composition of those programs can only be determined on an individual district basis.

Master planning assistances needs to be funded by the state. Larger districts will face a more contentious and complicated master planning process. The state needs to recognize this in advance of OSFC funding.

Site purchases need to be funded by the state. It is inevitable that inequities will be created amongst districts that have the local funds to purchase land and those who don’t. In addition, it is not conducive to the educational delivery process to base decisions of school closure and consolidation on how many parcels of land a district can afford to purchase.

A process for those districts that cannot pass a local bond needs to be considered. This occurrence is likely to increase in the future as the percentage of state funding decreases. For those districts unable to pass bonds, inequity is created.

Operations and maintenance funding formulas need to be based on the new facility sizes provided by the state. Personnel and utilities costs will rise immediately, while maintenance costs will rise exponentially after warranty periods expire and with inadequate funding.

Transportation funding formulae should also be considered in those districts requiring school boundary changes. Without additional monies for transportation, some key decisions regarding beneficial school consolidations may be rendered moot.

An on-going seminar program should be established by the OSFC to educate architects, school administrators, and construction managers about the overall process and their rights. Insofar as the architect is the representative of the district, this education would seem to be a key factor in improving the overall system.

1