posted by Joe Polk at 12:50 AM /
After much debate, the Mt. Lebanon school board has approved a design development plan for the high school renovation project and authorized the start of construction drawings.
The school board Monday voted 8 to 1 with James Fraasch against. The board requested that the Pittsburgh Celli-Flynn Brennan architecture firm examine recommendations from the Community Advisory Committee, which conducted a review of the design
Read more: www.post-gazette.com/pg/09358/1023199-55.stm
The school board Monday voted 8 to 1 with James Fraasch against. The board requested that the Pittsburgh Celli-Flynn Brennan architecture firm examine recommendations from the Community Advisory Committee, which conducted a review of the design
Read more: www.post-gazette.com/pg/09358/1023199-55.stm
Labels: community advisory committee, high school renovation, school board
5 Comments:
In the PG article, Mr. Celli is credited with indicating: "The plans meet the criteria set by the school board, he said, and will be the simplest to build at the best cost."
As to the Design Criteria, TODAY the District website indicates:
A set of design criteria was established through public and Board input gathered at numerous community meetings and meetings with staff, as well as input from the 2007 DeJong Study that was used in the development of the schematic design of the High School.
PREVIOUSLY the website indicated:
Over the past year, through public and Board input gathered at numerous community meetings and meetings with staff, as well as input from the 2007 DeJong Study, the architects established a set of criteria that was used in the development of the schematic design of the High School. (emphasis added)
My recollection is that while the current website reference is not incorrect, neither was the previous reference to the "architects" establishing the Design Criteria.
Not only do I remember it this way - but I do not believe anyone at the District would ever have crafted Criteria #14: Drop-off plaza on Horsman Road
Folks associated with the District would have put the drop-off on Horsman Drive.
A more interesting question is: Why change the website now?
Do we no longer want the Community to know the "architects" established the Design Criteria? I do not believe it is unusual, for design professionals to establish and articulate their criteria. Doing so provides perspective.
What may be unusual is for the client to take steps to bury the source.
I believe Bill Matthews has raised some extremely important points and questions. Members of the Board have repeatedly referred to the design criteria as being *theirs* in the sense that they have officially adopted the 15 criteria...a question arises as to what Board meeting were these criteria adopted by formal motion, discussion and vote of a Board majority ? What was the date and what do the official Minutes (not meeting summary)say ?
A majority of the Board and the Superintendent are treating these criteria as being absolute, fixed & unalterable or unmodifiable...regardless of possible cost saving or improved efficiency alternatives, particularly examples offered by the CAC. Why ? It sound a bit like the old saying : "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."
Regarding questions about individual criteria, I have one about #10 which states : "Minimize disruption to students during construction phase 1"...how about during phase 2 and 3, or why include any references to a phase at all...make it all inclusive...is the Board fully informed as to details on all construction phases, and did they conclude that student disruption would/might occur only during phase 1 ? Prior to completion of design development ?
I find the 15 criteria deeply suspect, on the grounds that they and our planning process led to the current, indefensibly expensive renovation plan. (To those who would dispute my claim that the plan's price is indefensible: Please explain why it makes sense to spend $115 million to renovate our high school.) What I find most disturbing, however, is that school-board directors continue to defend the plan not on its own merits but by pointing back to the 15 criteria, as if those criteria couldn't possibly be wrong or turn out to be too expensive in light of what our community would have to give up to get them.
Again, to the supporters of the $115-million plan: Why should our community spend this much to renovate our high school, especially when spending on school facilities does not improve student outcomes? (See [1] and [2].) If we're not buying educational value, what are we buying? It certainly doesn't cost $115 million to fix our high school's existing problems. So what does all that extra spending get us?
Cheers,
Tom
---
Sources:
[1] "It can be concluded that there is essentially no relationship between the quality of school facilities and student performance when other factors known to impact student performance are accounted for." Picus, Lawrence O., Scott F. Marion, Naomi Calvo and William J. Glenn. 2005. Understanding the Relationship Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: Evidence From Wyoming. Peabody Journal of Education. 80(3):71-95.
[2] "None [of the 24 studies the GAO examined] proved a causal relationship between school facilities and student outcomes." U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2009. Report GAO-10-32: School Facilities: Physical Conditions in School Districts Receiving Impact Aid for Students Residing on Indian Lands.
I went to look for the origin of the "Design Criteria" and found another District web page from May 2009 that indicates:
Over the past year, through public and Board input gathered at numerous community meetings and meetings with staff, the architects established a set of criteria that was used in the development of the schematic design of the High School. Also included in the criteria are the community and staff input from the 2007 DeJong Study.
A screen print of the page is posted here:
http://tinyurl.com/HS-Design-Criteria
Again, there is nothing wrong with the architects having "their" design criteria. But my gosh, what about other considerations, and those of the users in particular.
For example, the CAC analyzed 10 actual student schedules and found the proposed design significantly increases student travel distances. The Board's response was - - improved student travel distance is not a design criteria.
My speculation is that the reason improved student travel distance is not a design criteria is that the proposed design would have failed on this measure.
Think about it - - No point advancing a criteria, you can't satisfy! Even if student travel distance was often cited as a significant issue with the existing building in earlier forums.
Wouldn't allowing teachers time to finish a thought, or students time to stay over a minute to talk with a teacher be more beneficial than everyone running to beat the bell. Not to mention time to talk in the hall about last weekend and what's in store for the upcoming.
We will be using the new building for many years after the architects have ridden off into the sunset. For $115 million we should get it right.
It seems like going back and editing The Criteria with revisionist history has occurred? For example, note that in the architects' June 1, 2009, PowerPoint presentation, Criteria #10 was "Minimize disruption to students during construction sequences", plain and simple. No limitation to just "during construction phase 1". Is a repeat of the elementary renovations fiasco with children sitting in pulverized asbestos and demolition dusts being planned? Is that why there is now a revised hazardous materials assessment study mentioned at the December 14 school board meeting where "It's looking like 18-20% less" than the original assessment?
Post a Comment
<< Home