PEBEXCHANGEO

EC

D

6 The Netherlands’ School Building Prize

9 Educational Building and Decentralisation in Mexico

11 School Science Laboratories

14 UK Asset Management Plans

16 Albanian Model School

19 Educational Facilities in Korea

THE JOURNAL OF THE OECD PROGRAMME ON EDUCATIONAL BUILDING

ISSUE 36 FEB 99

Torcy Junior High School, France

The conclusions of the workshop will shortly beavailable from OECD Publications. If you wouldlike to place an advance order for the book, whichincludes the main points covered in discussion aswell as the text of the main presentations, pleasecontact Jill Gaston at the PEB Secretariat. Ordersreceived before 31 March will benefit from a 20 percent discount.

The workshop was jointly organised by PEB andthe OECD Programme on Institutional Managementin Higher Education, with the co-operation of theNew South Wales Department of Education andTraining. It is expected that a second workshop willbe held in the United States later this year.

The OECD Programme on Educational Building (PEB)The Programme on Educational Building (PEB) operates within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). PEBpromotes the international exchange of ideas, information, research and experience in all aspects of educational building. The overridingconcerns of the programme are to ensure that the maximum educational benefit is obtained from past and future investment in educationalbuildings and equipment, and that the building stock is planned and managed in the most efficient way.

Seventeen OECD Member countries and nine associate members currently participate in the Programme on Educational Building. PEB’smandate from the OECD Council to advise and report on educational facilities for students of all ages runs until the end of 2001. A steeringcommittee of representatives from each participating country establishes the annual programme of work and budget.

PEB Members PEB Associate MembersAustralia Netherlands Albania Education Development ProjectAustria New Zealand A.R.G.O. (Belgium)Czech Republic Portugal Ministerium der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft (Belgium)Finland Spain Province of Quebec (Canada)France Sweden Regione Emilia-Romagna (Italy)Greece Switzerland Regione Toscana (Italy)Iceland Turkey Service général de garantie des infrastructures scolaires subventionnées (Belgium)Ireland United Kingdom Slovak RepublicKorea Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan)

PEB AND OECD ACTIVITIES

STRATEGIC ASSETMANAGEMENT FORTERTIARY INSTITUTIONS

As the use of public funding comes under continuingscrutiny, there is growing awareness of the real costof facilities for tertiary education, and of the needto make more efficient use of those that have beenprovided. At the same time, advances in technologymean that alternative forms of course delivery havebecome educationally and administratively viable.The role of facility managers is changing fast as therealisation grows that their professional skills cangive institutions a competitive edge. Thirty-fivefacility managers from leading Australian andNew Zealand universities and colleges took partin a two-day intensive workshop in Sydney last yearwhere they were able to share the latest internationalthinking on some of these issues, and to work togetherto develop their understandings of their task.

Key speakers at the workshop included HansAntonsson, Managing Director of Akademiska Hus,Sweden; Bill Daigneau of the University of Texas,USA; Dr Grace Kenny, facilities consultant from theUnited Kingdom; Denise Bradley, Vice-Chancellorof the University of South Australia; Nigel French,Secretary-General of the University Grants Commit-tee, Hong Kong; David Rowland, New South WalesDepartment of Education and Training and PeterCoaldrake, Queensland University of Technology.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCA-TION AND SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

The Austrian Federal Ministry of Education andCultural Affairs organised an internationalconference on Environmental Education on theWay to a Sustainable Future, in Linz, Austria, from3 to 7 October. The conference was organised incollaboration with the OECD Centre for Educa-tional Research and the OECD Programme onEducational Building.

3

The conference took place in the framework of theOECD/CERI Project on “Environment and SchoolInitiatives”. The project, which started in 1984,attempts to establish a link between the develop-ment of environmental awareness and a teaching/learning process which develops dynamic ratherthan static qualities in students. It also examinedhow this link is established in practice and howthe quality of environmental education can beimproved in classrooms and schools.

The conference aimed at examining future perspec-tives and demands for the educational systemregarding environmental education in a sustainablesociety. Evaluation strategies were pointed out as avaluable resource which should be carefully definedand should not be wasted nor used without consid-eration of its consequences. The following keyquestions for evaluating environmental educationwere posed: 1) what are the purposes of the evalua-tion and who is the audience?; 2) how are the valuesand aspirations of environmental education enactedin the practices of learners and teachers?; 3) whathappens in environmental education? what is itspractice?; 4) how do people value the experience ofenvironmental education? what claims are made forenvironmental education and how could these claimsbe substantiated? what are the outcomes ofenvironmental education?

PEB, following the conference held in Winchester, UK,in September 1997 on School Grounds for Learning,sponsored a lecture by Wendy Titman on the “Effectsof the Learning Environment and the Culture ofTeaching in Environmental Education”, which showedthe impact of the environment and of school groundson the learning process. PEB also participated activelyin a working group on maintenance and sustainability.

A few comments on maintenanceThe working group, lead by Martin Heffernan fromthe Department of Education of Ireland, examinedthe relationship between maintenance and issuesof sustainability. Some general and importantconsiderations for maintenance and its relationshipto the environment were examined and discussed,outlining particular experiences for different countries.The working group tabulated environmental issuesrelating to school grounds, the appearance of build-ings, air quality and air temperature, ventilation, lightand noise. The workshop examined how these factorsmust be defined and maintained in order to ensure ahealthy environment.

The full report will be published by the AustrianMinistry of Education and Cultural Affairs in Viennaand should be available in early 1999; for moreinformation please contact the PEB Secretariat.

QUALITY OF SCHOOLFACILITIES AND THEIRMAINTENANCE

The quality of school buildings, physical conditions,facility management and maintenance were thetopics of a three-day seminar in Vienna in September.The Austrian Federal Ministry of Education andCultural Affairs conducted the event in co-operationwith PEB, the Austrian Institute of School and SportsFacilities and the working group “LebensraumSchule” with the support of the Upper AustriaRegion. Elisabeth Gehrer, Minister of Education,opened the seminar which was attended by about60 international decision-makers, scientists andschool building users.

The quality of a school building is determined by, inaddition to the structure itself, improvements, servicesand maintenance, thus the importance of facility andfinancial management. Besides the function of schoolbuildings as a place to learn and work, communica-tion and social and cultural aspects play an increas-ing role, requiring buildings to meet a number ofadditional needs. Sometimes the users of a schoolbuilding have a different perception than outsideobservers; the experiences shared by users during theseminar and the ideas presented by companies fromthe building sector gave an overview of the wide rangeof issues involved in providing quality facilities.

Glen Earthman, from the Virginia TechnicalUniversity, USA, described research on the impactof school buildings on student attainment. Severalrecent studies carried out in the United States haveidentified a clear positive correlation betweenaspects of facility condition and the scores achievedby students in tests. He suggested that as thecondition of buildings was one of the few factorswhich it was within the power of educationauthorities to improve, this evidence provided aconvincing justification for them to do so.

Other reports by experts from Austria, Germany,Spain and the United Kingdom expounded onschools as meeting places, energy-contracting andasset management plans.

A summary report of the seminar is available inGerman and English from: Doris Karner, BMUK,Abt. Z/A/7, Minoritenplatz 5, 1014 Vienna,Fax: 43 1 53 120 4482,E-mail: doris.karner@bmuk.gv.at

4

and was recently the sole reviewerof the Higher School Certificatein New South Wales. He holdsa PhD and an MEd from theUniversity of Illinois, USA, ineducational psychology andmeasurement.

PEB HOSTS US EVENT WITHNEW CEFPI CHAPTERPEB will be cooperating with the newest chapterof the Council of Educational Facility PlannersInternational and the American Institute of Archi-tects to organise a symposium on maintenance andthe renewal of building stock. It will take place inBaltimore, Maryland (USA) on 30-31 October1999. More information on this event will appearin the June issue of PEB Exchange.

The new northeast chapter of CEFPI called UrbanEducational Facilities for the 21st Century was createdto focus on the unique needs of urban schools,particularly in poverty-stricken areas, with the goal“to provide the best possible learning environmentfor children”. To learn more about their work, contactthe president of UEF21-NE, Ed Kirkbride:Tel.: 1 610 873 1560, E-mail: eek@bee.net

SCHOOL SURVEYSGovernments and the general public need solidevidence of educational outcomes. The OECD hastherefore launched an extensive programme, knownas PISA, for producing policy-oriented and interna-tionally comparable indicators of student achievementon a regular basis and in a timely manner.

The results of the OECD/PISA tests, published everythree years, will allow national policy makers tocompare the performance of their education systemswith those of other countries. OECD/PISA will provideinsight into how student achievement relates toimportant demographic, social, economic and edu-cational variables, including the quality and availabilityof school resources and parental involvement.

The OECD/PISA tests will be administered to 15-year-olds in 27 OECD countries as well as in a range ofnon-member countries, starting in the year 2000.They will cover domains including reading, math-ematics and science.

For more information, contact A. Schleicher,OECD/ELS, Fax: 33 (0)1 45 24 90 98,E-mail: andreas.schleicher@oecd.org………………………………………………………

APPRAISAL OF EDUCA-TIONAL INVESTMENTSPEB and the European Investment Bank (EIB) broughttogether 90 researchers, planners, managers workingon educational policies and architects from OECDcountries to address the appraisal of investment ineducational facilities. Issues included:• economic analysis of educational projects;• performance indicators for educational projects;• management of physical resources for education;• design and equipment of physical facilities for

education.

Until recently, projects in the field of educationwere not eligible for EIB financing. This changedradically with a resolution made by the heads ofstate of the European Union in June 1997. The reso-lution, aimed to boost growth and employment inthe EU, included an invitation to the EIB to direct asubstantial portion of its lending to education,health and urban regeneration. The Bank respondedby widening its rules for eligibility, bringingeducation fully into the ambit of its lending.

The emphasis of the EIB however is not on the volumeof investment financed but on the quality of theinvestment. To better understand successfulapproaches to the allocation of resources in theeducation sector, the Bank contacted PEB. Theresulting collaboration gave rise to the experts’meeting in Luxembourg in November 1998.

During the two days of discussion, the OECDprovided analysis of educational inputs and outputsat system level, economic research on the impact ofeducation on economic growth and project-specificexperience of best practice. Progress was made to-ward establishing a methodology for the evaluationof investment, taking into account environmentalconsiderations, flexibility, changing technologies andshared use of facilities.

A full report on the meeting will be published inthe coming months.

NEW DEPUTY DIRECTORFOR EDUCATIONThe OECD Directorate for Education, Employment,Labour and Social Affairs welcomed Barry McGaw,from Australia, as its new Deputy Director forEducation in September 1998. He was previouslyDirector of the Australian Council for EducationalResearch (ACER) where he had worked since 1985.Barry McGaw has led numerous inquiries on researchfunding and priorities for the Government of Australia

5

NEWS

FRANCE ANNOUNCESINTEREST-FREE LOANS

In response to demand from students and others,the French Ministry of Education has announced apackage of measures to improve conditions inupper secondary education. These include loansto regions totalling four billion francs over four yearsfree of interest. The loans are for constructingstudent cultural centres and offices for teachers;improving access to resource centres, computerrooms and language laboratories; and bringingequipment up to standard, according to Le Monde– La lettre de l’éducation.

£19 BILLION BOOST FORUK EDUCATION

The Government of the United Kingdom has com-mitted to raise spending on education by £19 billionover the three years from 1999 to 2002. Educationand Employment Secretary David Blunkett quali-fied the sum as “the biggest single investment ineducation in the history of this country”. He said,“This is the fulfilment of our pledge that educationwould be our number one priority ....”

The money will support measures to improvestandards of literacy and numeracy, cut truancy andexclusion and increase access to further and highereducation, particularly for people from lowerincome households.

The increase in spending will ensure that the UKwill meet its goal to put two out of three three-year-olds in nursery education by the year 2002 –which requires 190 000 extra places – and meetits class size pledge. The Government had promisedthere would be no more than 30 pupils per classfor five-, six- and seven-year-olds by September2001. £160 million of the new funds are allottedto provide over 2 000 extra classrooms.

Capital investment to improve school buildings andequipment – rising to £1 650 million in 2001-02 –will double compared to 1996-97.

Plans have also been announced to invest £700 mil-lion in information and communications technologyfor UK schools.

US SCHOOL DESIGNAWARD

The Council of Educational Facility Plannerspresented the 1998 James D. MacConnell Awardfor excellence in school design to Buckeye ValleyMiddle School, located near Delaware, Ohio. Thejudges commended the project for its collabora-tive planning, involving district administrators,teachers, staff and community members, whichresulted in a building that is innovative, economi-cal and focused on the needs of adolescents.Unique instructional spaces lend flexibility forteam teaching, interdisciplinary grouping andhigh-tech/high touch approaches to promoteactive learning.

MAJOR NEWUK LEGISLATION

The School Standards and Framework Act, put onthe Statute Book in July 1998, gives theGovernment tough powers to raise educationstandards throughout England. The Act establishesnew categories of schools and sets out the role ofLocal Education Authorities (LEAs) in respect ofmaintenance and funding. It defines arrangementsfor the organisation of schools, provides that eachhas a governing body and lays out responsibili-ties of the latter with an emphasis on standardsand the promotion of good behavior. The Secre-tary of State now has the power to close schoolsthat persist in a record of failure.

The legislation also sets out procedures for the fixingof admission numbers and covers staffing arrange-ments. Additional measures include limits on infantclass sizes, the provision of school meals and theoutlawing of corporal punishment for all pupils.

Among other plans given the go-ahead by the Actfigures Education Action Zones, an innovativepartnership between businesses, parents, schoolsand LEAs to boost standards in areas of socialdeprivation.

………………………………………………………

6

PROJECTS

THE NETHERLANDS’SCHOOL BUILDINGPRIZEThe School Building Prize has been awarded everytwo years since 1992 to Dutch school boards thathave proved able to embrace new directions in schoolbuilding design while keeping within their availablebudget. The Prize, which has drawn acclaim for thedevelopment of high quality educational architecturein the Netherlands, provides publicity for successfulprojects so that other schools can benefit from thedesigns and information. Associated with this prizeare the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture andSciences; the Ministry of Housing, Urban and RuralPlanning, and Environmental Management; and theAssociation of Dutch Municipalities.

For the 1998 award all school governing bodies thathad invested at least 500 000 Guilders to build ordrastically expand or renovate an elementary schoolbetween 1994 and 1997 were invited to participate.The competition was reserved for primary schools,as the previous prize had been given to an adult-education institution. The jury included architects,professors, government representatives and a townplanner. They evaluated the projects according to thefollowing criteria:

• process and project: the selection process for anarchitect and consultants; the client’s ability tobuild a balanced team and manage the project;the layout as a whole and the variety of spacesavailable to the pupil; the possibility for multipleuses of the building for educational and otherpurposes at present and in the future;

• architectural interpretation: the interplay betweenelements such as structure, space, light and choiceof materials and their influence on the building’satmosphere and quality of the facilities; the extentto which the architect succeeded in involving theclient in the design process;

• construction: the use of durable materials in orderto ensure the maximum life of the building;

• adaptation to town planning and the landscape:the building’s spatial integration into its neigh-bourhood as well as a clear delineation betweenthe school and its surroundings;

• quality and cost: the costs incurred in relation tothe quality of the building and the availablebudget.

First prize

The 1998 School Building Prize was awarded tothe British School in The Hague, an elementary andjunior secondary school. Although the school wasbuilt according to Dutch building regulations by aDutch architect and construction company, theschool’s governing body is not subject to the Dutchdecision-making procedures for educationalconstruction. This perhaps gave the British Schoolmore freedom to manoeuvre, but its constructioncosts, Gld 11 241 955, were considered compara-ble to those of the other entries.

The jury found the school to be remarkably welladapted to its surroundings. The building is placedon a site with a previously existing sports hall andgarden, and the garden is harmoniously incorporatedinto the school’s landscaping. However withregard to its neighbourhood, the school occupiesan isolated position.

The school building consists of two main parts, arectangular section and a curved one, each withits own functional and architectural style. Theclassrooms are situated in the curved section over-looking the garden, and the rectangular areacontains all of the other functions. An area unitingthe two parts of the construction forms a spacioushallway with a mezzanine from which studentcirculation is fully observable.

It is a genuinely “green” building constructed ofdurable materials. Wood, glass, metal andconcrete are visible in their natural state and areapplied in an environmentally-friendly manner.Colour has been added only here and there.

The building makes use of natural climate regulation:cooling takes place by means of a sophisticated air

First prize winner:British Schoolin The Hague

7

British School in The Hague

De Petteflet in Tilburg

circulation system involving the “chimney effect”created by operable skylights in the centralhallway. Because of this system, in place of dropceilings, ceiling strips were applied whereneeded, taking maximum advantage of thethermal capacity of the exposed concrete.

The temperature can be regulated in each areaseparately; only the skylights are operated centrally.The garden side of the building benefits from asouthern exposure; in the winter sunlight entersthrough the aluminium slats of an externalstructure, which, in the summer, can be closedto deflect the sun’s heat.

The building exudes a pleasant atmosphere whichis reinforced by good acoustics. The openness ofthe construction allows a sufficient view of eacharea for the children to situate themselves, andin spite of the building’s size – 6 187 m2 – it doesnot give an impression of sheer mass.

It was clear to the jury that discussion betweenthe architect and client led to the project’senhancement.

Honourable mentions

One of two honourable mentions was given to aMontessori elementary school, De Petteflet, inTilburg. It was built at a cost of Gld 3 485 000 witha gross surface area of 1 750 m2. The school’s designis based on the three primary shapes that play animportant role in Montessori teaching:

• the circle – created by the cylindrical tower thathouses the staff areas;

• the triangle – represented by the building thatcontains most of the classrooms, those for thefirst years on the ground floor and the highestyears on top;

• the square – formed by the section containingclassrooms for the intermediate grades andindoor play areas.

The jury found the basic idea of the geometricshapes to be effective though somewhat contrivedin places. Each of these sections has its own colourscheme and construction materials. The naturalcolours of the materials are exposed, making themeasily recognisable by the children.

There are individual study spaces both inside andoutside the classrooms, including study areas inthe window sills for the older pupils. The youngestpupils have their own playground next to theirclassrooms.

The school is located in a town planning zonebetween different neighbourhoods. The area ischaracterised primarily by industrial buildings andsports fields and is separated from the residentialarea by roads.

8

Again the architectural inspiration and theeducational vision provided by the client weredemonstrably united through constructive dialogue.

A second honourable mention went to the primaryschool Het Spectrum, in Almere. It has a grosssurface area of 2 520 m2 and cost Gld 4 600 000.

information and communication technology aswell as facilities for new teaching methods didnot receive sufficient attention. The school play-ground was also often neglected; the result is thatattractive schools are situated in poor settings andlack a clear delineation between the schoolgrounds and their surroundings. Other commonerrors related to staircases designed with stepstoo high or built of steel, making inevitable fallsmore dangerous.

The art of designing a school is to create an environ-ment whose structure, visual stimulants andacoustics contribute to the harmonious developmentof the pupils. As primary education increasinglyencourages children to independently explore theirsurroundings, buildings should provide freedomof movement inside and outside the classrooms,sufficient individual study spaces where childrenfeel at ease and additional areas for a variety ofactivities.

It is important that prior to the design process theconsultants, architects and client agree on themain needs. Then each party should evaluate, andif necessary re-adjust, the project from the pointof view of his or her own competence. While thearchitect is responsible for the structural qualityof the building, the educational programme ofthe school must remain the highest priority. Itsreflection in a building’s design requiresconscious detailing of teaching styles, workmethods and the educational situations that theschool wishes to create.

Financial risks can be reduced by designing flexiblebuildings, which increase the possibilities for otheruses (while too much flexibility should be avoidedas it can lead to anonymity and a loss of thecharacteristic school identity).

The jury concluded that those investing in the futurewould be well advised to demonstrate willingnessto devote the extra financing which is often requiredto construct well-conceived school buildings.

A 48-page book in English and Dutch gives fulldetails of the award process and providesphotographs and plans of the nine finalist schools.Copies of “School Building Prize 1998” areavailable from:

ICS AdviseursP.O. Box 2822800 AG Gouda, NetherlandsTel.: 31 182 575200Fax: 31 182 575201.

The school offers a clear structure and a spacious-ness that the jury felt would have a lasting effecton the children. It houses a wide variety of spaces,with each classroom being a different shape. Likethe De Petteflet school, classrooms for the first,middle and upper grades are grouped separately,each with a unique colour scheme. There are manycheerful elements to the school, such as a beautifulplayroom and the communal area’s creative“theatre wall”. It was apparent to the jury that theclient gave clear direction in the construction processand that the architect was sincerely concerned withreflecting the world of children, which led to a playful,exciting and flexible building.

General findings of the jury

Many of the 41 participating schools were foundto have too lightweight a construction, requiringextra heating, cooling and ventilation to correctthe internal climate and therefore raising operat-ing costs. The jury reported that in most designs,

Het Spectrum in Almere

9

EDUCATIONALBUILDING ANDDECENTRALISATIONIN MEXICO

Mexico at a GlanceTotal area: 1 973 000 km21

Population (in 1996): 96 582 0001

Population under 15 years old (in 1995): 36.2%1

Children between 6 and 14 years old attending school:93.6%2

Children having at least one year of preschooleducation:

– before decentralisation: 74%2

– after decentralisation: 90%2

Children having completed elementary school:– before decentralisation: 72%2

– after decentralisation: 85%2

The Mexican Educational SystemPreschool – optional: 3 yearsElementary school – compulsory: 6 yearsJunior secondary school – compulsory: 3 yearsPreparatory school (upper secondary school) –optional: 3 years

Historical background

The Administrative Board of the Federal SchoolConstruction Programme (CAPFCE) has been inexistence for 54 years, but it was only in 1977that initial efforts were made to transfer respon-sibility for educational building to the adminis-trations of the 32 states of Mexico. In 1985,legislation was introduced to change the CAPFCE’sstructure, powers and functions with a view tobringing them in line with the objectives ofdecentralisation and modernisation of thecountry. Initiatives were implemented in order topromote the participation of state governments,municipal authorities and communities ineducational building, resource management andbuilding maintenance activities.

The key points of the agreement on the decen-tralisation of the CAPFCE, which defined thedecentralisation strategy at the beginning of 1996,are as follows:

• Planning of work: the states are responsible forthe planning of all primary education infra-structure.

• Construction and management of buildings:state and municipal authorities are now respon-sible for managing educational buildings.

• Allocation of funding: a funding allocationprocedure that takes into account a number ofvariables, such as the wealth or growth rate ofthe local population, has been drawn up.

• Secondary education: the federal governmentand states, which now have joint responsibilityfor the planning of secondary school facilities,will examine decentralisation in this field, andin particular the process by which schools willincreasingly assume responsibility for develop-ing their infrastructure.

• Restructuring of the CAPFCE: because of the sub-stantial differences in the technical andadministrative capacity of the various states andmunicipalities, the CAPFCE will temporarily actas a fund for financing educational infrastruc-ture while at the same time retaining certainsupervisory functions.

The programme for decentralising the CAPFCE

During the first stage, which took place in 1996,the broad lines of the above agreement were laiddown, formally launching the decentralisationprogramme at the primary education level. In 1997,during the second stage, the Administrative Boardconsolidated the process at the primary level,extended it to the secondary and university levelsand launched initiatives to create educationalbuilding agencies in states.

The programme’s implementation revealed a numberof shortcomings in the organisational structure of thegovernments of the various states. Technical andadministrative deficiencies have slowed down theimplementation of investment programmes, and alack of institutional co-ordination and difficultiesin defining procedures for implementing the planhave prompted some states to create their owneducational building agency.

Creation of state educational building agencies

In line with the decentralisation programme, amajor effort was made in 1997 to set up stateeducational building agencies, which were seen

1. OECD (1998), “OECD in Figures”, supplement to The OECDObserver, No. 212, June/July 1998, Paris.

2. 4th Report to the Government, September 1998 (summary ofPresident Zedillo’s mandate for the past presidential year).

10

Key to states in central Mexico1 Aguascalientes2 Guanajuato3 Queretaro4 Hidalgo5 Mexico6 Distrito Federal7 Morelos8 Tlaxcala

Chihuahua

Coahuila

Tamaulipas

San LuisPotosi

Zacatecas

Sinaloa

Durango

Sonora

NuevoLeon

VeracruzOaxaca

PueblaGuerrero

MichoacanJalisco

Yucatan

QuintanaRooCampeche

Chiapas

Nayarit

Colima

BajaCalifornia Sur

BajaCalifornia

Norte

432

5 6 87

1

MexicoCity

Gulf of Mexico

North Pacific Ocean

Gulf of California

Gulf ofTehuantepec

UNITED STATES

BELIZE

HONDURAS

ELSALVADOR

GUATEMALA

Bay ofCampeche

as the institutional mechanism that would make itpossible to decentralise educational infrastructureconstruction completely.

In 1998, the CAPFCE managed a budget of 615million pesos for the construction, equipping andmaintenance of educational facilities. The Admin-istrative Board considers that it is essential for eachentity which has established a local educationalbuilding agency to be able to receive its fundingallocation directly from this agency, now that theCAPFCE’s human, physical and financial resourcesare being transferred to local entities under therelevant legal agreements.

The CAPFCE is being transformed so as to ensurea broader and more equitable distribution ofresponsibilities and greater participation ofexecutive authorities, municipalities, localcommunities and society at large. This change istaking shape through consultations and agree-ments between the various sectors and thenation’s political and social actors.

The CAPFCE’s new role

The CAPFCE is now a body that sets standards,exercises technical supervision and providesfinancial assistance. A 1985 decree laid down that“the Board shall define technical standards for theconstruction, equipping and authorisation ofbuildings and school facilities”. Once its original

functions have been decen-tralised, the CAPFCE will havethe new responsibility of set-ting technical standards foreducational infrastructurenation-wide. The CAPFCE willbe responsible for definingand approving architecturalprojects involving the designand use of space in educationalfacilities, and for establishingmethods and procedures forcertifying diplomas in accord-ance with the applicablestandards.

The decentralisation will beimplemented as follows:• By the end of 1998, the states

were to have established localagencies responsible for theconstruction, renovation andmaintenance of their schools.

• The CAPFCE will transfer the physicalinfrastructure and resources necessary to enablethe new agencies to operate.

• Municipalities and local communities will beincreasingly involved in all aspects of educa-tional infrastructure.

As for the CAPFCE, it will now have the followingresponsibilities:

• To promote scientific and technologicalimprovements in the construction of educa-tional facilities.

• To establish the most adequate technicalstandards for the construction, equipping andrenovation of the country’s educationalinfrastructure.

• To supervise the progress and quality of the workbeing done in decentralised entities.

• To provide financial support to these entities forthe development of their respectiveprogrammes.

• To provide training in all areas mentionedabove.

…………

MEXICO

11

SCHOOL SCIENCELABORATORIES:TODAY’S TRENDSAND GUIDELINESThis article reports on practice in a selection of OECD Membercountries. It is not a comprehensive survey. PEB is compiling adossier on this subject which we plan to make available on thePEB Web site. We invite readers to send other recent referencesto the Secretariat.

Science laboratories in schools are expensive toequip and maintain. Specific pedagogical needs, newtechnology and safety requirements contribute to thecosts. In an effort to get the most efficient use offacilities, some countries are rethinking school labswith a move toward more flexible approaches.

Switzerland: flexibility and integrationIn junior secondary schools in the Canton of Geneva,chemistry, physics and biology are taught for the mostpart in “versatile” classrooms; each subject has oneroom which serves for both whole-class teaching andindividual practical work. All equipment is mobileother than a series of stations with outlets for water,gas and electricity. While at the level of uppersecondary education each science subject tradition-ally has its own laboratory and separate classroom,versatile classrooms are replacing these in new andrenovated buildings (where theatre seating forexample is being removed).

The Public Education Department of the Canton ofGeneva cautions against choosing designs with fixedinstallations that are so rigid and sophisticated thatthey cannot be adapted to changes in use. It promotes“simple solutions allowing for change, not onlybecause of costs and installation time, but mostlybecause of the need to be able to easily adapt thefacilities to different uses in the future.”

The idea of integrated science laboratories – one spaceshared for biology, chemistry and physics experiments– is being introduced in building plans for the future.

France: incorporating new technology

The French Ministry of Education sees a growing needto equip upper secondary schools for science instruc-tion using modern technology, such as multimediacomputers connected to local networks and Internet,video recorders and players, overhead projectors andtelevisions that can be connected to computer andvideo equipment in addition to picking up stations.

Beginning in 1987, facilities were installed in uppersecondary schools for computer-assisted experiments.Since 1997 France has been installing multimediastations and computer peripherals in biology labs.PCs are being networked so that students can sharematerials and work together. Portable equipment forcomputer-assisted experiments will be introduced inthe years to come. The laboratories remain equippedfor traditional experimental work.

In junior secondary education, chemistry and physicsshare facilities: laboratories, combination collection/preparation rooms and teacher research rooms. Atthe upper secondary level this is not always the case;physics and chemistry do however share laborato-ries for computer-assisted experiments.

The Government recommends a classical layout forscience labs, one that is wide and not too deep inorder for students to see teacher presentations andexperiments at the front of the room. The Ministrywarns that no other discipline should be taught inphysics and chemistry labs for “safety reasons and inthe presence of fragile and costly materials .... Thisconstraint allows major savings in the institution’smaintenance by avoiding damage.”

Ireland: safety first

The concern for safety is the starting point forguidance from the Irish Department of Education to

Swiss integrated laboratoryIn September 1998 the Canton ofGeneva established specificationsfor integrated science rooms forjunior secondary education. Theyapply to a 60 or 80␣ m2 surfaceserving for class work for 16 or24 students or lab work for 12 or16 students.

FEATURE

Computer-assisted experiments in FranceWithin ten years at a school with two laboratories, eachequipped with six PCs, 4 000 students were able to docomputer-assisted experiments. New installations aredesigned to allow students to work in groups.

12

schools and teachers. Below are examples of Ireland’srecommendations concerning various aspects ofschool laboratories, published in the governmentmanual Safety in School Sciences:

Design and accommodation:• Structural: There should be ample light (500 to

1000 Lux) and good ventilation (7 to 15 airchanges per hour).

• Organisational: Areas should be available in thelaboratory for on-going experiments, for wet anddirty work and for permanent apparatus andspecimens.

General services:• It should be possible to isolate the supply of

gas and electricity by emergency stop buttonsat the teacher’s position and at the exit or out-side the classroom.

• Gas taps should be such that they cannot beturned on accidentally.

• There should be no steps in the laboratory orbetween the laboratory and the preparationroom.

Electrical services and equipment:• Equipment must be suitably identified and

marked, including the maker’s name and itselectrical ratings.

• Where possible such equipment should have apilot light to indicate when it is switched on.

• Portable electrically operated equipment shouldbe inspected at regular intervals and a recordkept of inspections made.

Hygiene and first-aid:• One or more fully trained first-aid persons

should always be available on the schoolpremises during normal class times.

• Laboratories should be equipped with anadequate supply of waste boxes, preferably oftwo distinctive kinds, one for dry and brokenwaste and one for wet waste such as filter papersand biological materials.

South Australia: planning for sustainability

Ann Gorey, of the Administration and InformationServices which advises the South Australia Depart-ment of Education, Training and Employment ontechnical details, legislation and asset managementstrategies, stresses that planning for school sciencelaboratories should address long-term educationaland structural implications. This requires a careful lookat three key areas of sustainability of the design:

• Educational sustainability: meeting the needsof the curriculum and matching ways in whichstudents learn (e.g. team work, collaborativelearning or self-directed research);

• Environmental sustainability: including designfeatures such as natural light and ventilation;planning for the responsible disposal of chemicaland other waste;

• Physical sustainability: ensuring the building’s“fitness for purpose”; complying with legisla-tive requirements; providing flexibility.

Facilities that respond to these criteria run from low-cost to high-cost options. At the Unley High School inAdelaide which has older style classrooms, the seniorscience teacher has been able to create a dynamiclearning environment by using moveable tables anda wide range of low technology. St Peter’s Boys Schoolis an extensive new centre designed to demonstratethe principles of natural lighting and flexibility; featuresof its buildings include recycled water, solar energyand linking of indoor and outdoor areas.

Maryland: a comprehensive approach

Science facilities in upper secondary schools in theUS State of Maryland are being renovated toprovide students with state-of-the-art facilities. Inthe six years since the governor initiated the LOOKOF THE FUTURE programme, 345 labs wereapproved in 77 schools with a state investment ofUS$27 941 000.

Planning guidelines prepared by the state areintended to respond “to evolutionary changes ineducation, including emphases on the processes ofscience, the application of scientific thinking to broadcontent areas, the introduction of electroniccommunications into the science laboratory, and theinclusion of all students, including those withdisabilities, in the full range of science activities,” asdescribed by State Superintendent of Schools, NancyGrasmick. Maryland is sensitive to environmentalimplications and encourages “ecologically-sounddesign practices”.

Maryland’s science facilities other than labs andlecture areas include student project rooms, foradvanced research and long-term projects,greenhouses and science studios. The latter is anew programme space, for projects involvingmore than one discipline, which “supports ahybrid of pure and applied science and isparticularly appropriate for team teaching scienceand technology education.” ………………………………………

13

REFERENCES

Guide d’équipement: physique et chimie en collège (May 1998),Guide d’équipement: physique et chimie en lycée d’enseignementgénéral (June 1998),Guide d’équipement: physique et chimie dans les sectionsd’enseignement professionel (June 1998); Ministère de l’Éducationnationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, France.These equipment guidelines for different levels of secondaryeducation cover all issues related to installing facilities in new orrenovated buildings: teaching objectives, technology, costs,hygiene and safety. They provide layouts for classrooms, tradi-tional and computer laboratories, collection/preparation roomsand teacher resource rooms, and they list the most suitableequipment and quantities of materials needed.

Safety in the School Laboratory: Disposal of Chemicals (1996),Irish Department of Education, Dublin.This a collection of “user friendly” safety data sheets on 161 chemi-cals – all those on the syllabus and other common chemicals –compiled for quick reference by teachers.

Safety in School Science (1996), Irish Department of Education,Dublin.This 114-page document written for teachers and schoolmanagement is a code of practice on laboratory design and services,organisation and management, hazards and safety precautions,emergency procedures and useful practical techniques. Theprinciples and guidelines given aim “to allow the efficient conductof practical work ... with a view to preventing accidents.”

“School Science Laboratories: Planning for Sustainability” (1998),Ann Gorey, South Australia Department for Administrative andInformation Services, Adelaide.

Paper available on the PEB Internet site under What’s New athttp://www.oecd.org/els/edu/peb/els_peb.htm.

The paper describes what is meant by educationally, environmen-tally and physically sustainable laboratories. It lists fifteen questionsto ask when planning to build or refurbish a facility, such as who isresponsible for identifying new trends, what is the focus of thespace and whether a staff familiarisation programme has beenplanned. Three Australian schools are described whose facilitiesrange from low-cost to high-cost options.

Science Facilities Design Guidelines (1994), Maryland StateDepartment of Education, United States.This publication provides details of all aspects of science facilities– from planning and the role of each party involved, to construction,to Post-Occupancy Evaluation – for all new schools, renovationsand additions, from kindergarten through upper secondary edu-cation. Planning recommendations include evaluating outside as-sets (e.g. partnerships with local colleges, industry and museums)that can affect requirements within the building, and designingthe school site for use for science and environmental education.

FURTHER READING

Changing the Subject – Innovations in Science, Mathematicsand Technology Education (1996), OECD/Routledge.Drawing on 23 case studies from OECD countries, the authorsconcentrate on the origins and purposes of innovation within andacross the science, mathematics and technology curricula andexplore the involvement of teachers and students. They reflect onstrategies adopted to cope with and bring about change.

Fume Cupboards in Schools (1998), Architects & BuildingBranch of the Department for Education and Employment,United Kingdom.This bulletin “covers the level of provision that is desirable tomeet curriculum needs and makes recommendations for good

practice in the design, specification and installation of fumecupboards.”

Middle Schooling Matters in Science: Strategies for Learningand Teaching (1998), South Australia Department of Educa-tion, Training and Employment, Adelaide.This manual is a professional development package designedby teachers for teachers, to support effective learning andteaching in science for students aged 12 to 15. It advocates a“hands on” approach to science.

Planning Guidelines: Secondary School Science (1998), SouthAustralia Department for Administrative and InformationServices.This guide provides a broad description of the requirements forfacilities and makes specific reference to requirements that arelegislated.

Safety in Science Education (1996), Department for Educa-tion and Employment, United Kingdom.This document provides legal advice, relevant health and safetylegislation and information on risk assessment for teachers andtechnicians.

Utrymmen och Utrustning för Undervisningen iNaturvetenskapliga Ämnen (Space and Equipment for TeachingNatural Sciences) (1997), Marja Montonen (ed.), FinnishMinistry of Education.

This publication covers:• objectives and methods for teaching sciences at the primary

and secondary levels;• designing instructional space; planning for ventilation,

electricity and water supply and evacuation;• equipment; labelling, storage and destruction of chemicals

and biological matter;• first aid training; safety practices for teaching in laboratories.

“Widening the Appeal of Science in Schools” (1998), EdwynJames, OECD Observer, No. 214, October/November.

This article is an overview of the knowledge gained from Chang-ing the Subject (above) and presents implications of the currentlearning situation for the teacher.

WEB SITES

Association for Science Education – http://www.ase.org.uk/The full text of “Inspecting Safety in Science: A Guide for OfstedInspectors in Primary Schools”, produced by CLEAPSS, is foundhere along with a guide for secondary schools. Safety-relatedarticles from ASE journals are also available at this site, as wellas a list of publications on safety.

Centre national de la recherche pédagogique –http://www.cndp.fr/Recent articles on multimedia laboratories are available underthe section Publications en ligne.

Le groupe “Sciences Physiques Internet” de l’Académie deGrenoble – http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/phychim/cadrprin.htmThis site provides a variety of references on safety in the chem-istry laboratory.

Multi-média et Internet : des outils pour l’enseignement –http://perso.wanadoo.fr/svt1/

This site of the French National Research Group for ITC in Lifeand Earth Sciences offers a visit to a biology laboratory and anexample of student lab work using information technology andcommunications.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

14

THEUNITED KINGDOM’SSCHOOL ASSETMANAGEMENT PLANS

Provisional Guidance on Asset Management Plans(AMPs) for schools was published by the Depart-ment for Education and Employment (DfEE) inAugust 19981. These plans will help English LocalEducation Authorities (LEAs) to identify, agree andaddress the most urgent and important priorities intheir school capital programmes, and to help intheir longer term planning and management of theschool estate. They will also help to underpin LEAapplications to DfEE for capital support. LEAs willbe expected to have the first stages of their AMPsin place within about a year, and have them fullyoperational within two to three years.

Background

Shortly after coming to power in the May 1997 Britishelection, the Labour government announced itscommitment to tackling the school repair andmaintenance backlog by increasing capital spendingby some £1.08 billion. This, together with £1.5 billionmade available following the 1998 ComprehensiveSpending Review, as well as private sector invest-ment secured through the Public Private PartnershipProgramme, will mean that total capital expenditureon premises will have more than doubled by theend of this Parliament. The central aim of this newinvestment is to help raise standards and attainmentin schools through improving the quality of theteaching environment.

Asset management plans

The aim of AMPs is to set out the informationneeded, and the criteria used, to make decisionsabout spending on school premises which raisestandards of education and provide value formoney.

The objectives of AMPs are to:

• provide an agreed basis for local decisions onspending priorities;

• bring together and co-ordinate the capital needsof other LEA Plans;

• help schools in developing their educationalplans by making fair and transparent the processof decision-making across the authority;

• help in the development of public-privatepartnership projects;

• provide assurance to the DfEE that LEAprioritisation systems are sound;

• provide policy makers with a better nationalview of the state of the school building stock.

AMPs will cover all capital spending on schools.This will include spending from budgets heldcentrally by local authorities as well as thosedelegated to schools.

Five years should be a reasonable time scale for anAMP, with annual updating to reflect changingneeds and priorities. This would allow time toprogramme and budget for repair and maintenanceworks, and for most small to medium-sized capitalschemes. This period also corresponds with thesystem of quinquennial condition surveys and fiveyear rolling maintenance programmes that manyauthorities operate. The Plan may, however, needa forward-look element beyond five years for largerscale projects and longer-term public-privatepartnership schemes.

AMPs will need to develop through a partnership ofheadteachers, governors and LEAs within a DfEEpolicy and funding framework. It will be essentialfor the respective bodies to understand their rolesand responsibilities to make the partnership work.AMPs will need to reflect the needs and priorities ofindividual schools and take account of their educa-tional development plans. LEAs, however, will alsohave strategic responsibilities that might not alwaysmatch exactly the perceived needs of individualschools. In such circumstances, openness andconsultation across all schools will be essential.

Stages in developing an asset management plan

Six main stages are identified below. Though theseare listed sequentially, in reality there will beoverlap and interrelationship, both between thedifferent stages and the processes they contain.Furthermore, the whole sequence will need to beregularly reviewed and updated in a cyclicalmanner as capital programmes are implemented

PROJECTS cont.

1. Available from the Department for Education and EmploymentPublications Centre, PO Box 5050, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6ZQ,UK, Tel.: 44 845 6022260, Fax: 44 845 6033360.

15

and new programmes are identified. Developmentof the Plan by the LEA will probably require a multi-disciplinary approach involving the EducationDepartment and its property advisers. The LEA willneed to ensure that schools and their propertyadvisers are also fully engaged in this process.

Stage 1. Initial policy statement. This sets out theframework of respective roles and responsibilitiesand the scope of the AMP. It would be worked upwith the other partners, and provide the under-pinning for the remainder of the Plan.

Stage 2. Assessing existing premises. This involvesassessing the totality of the existing school premisesin the area and gathering key data and premisesperformance indicators. To aid this process, and tohelp ensure national consistency, the DfEE willshortly be issuing guidance on these aspects (see“Next steps” below).

Stage 3. Identifying needs. This stage involvesconsidering LEA Plans and School DevelopmentPlans; determining the “gap” between existingprovision and current needs; and identifying areasof concern. The investment needs of schoolpremises can be categorised broadly in terms ofcondition, sufficiency and suitability as follows:

• condition needs focus on the physical state ofpremises to ensure safe and continuousoperation;

• sufficiency needs focus on the quantity andorganisation of school places;

• suitability needs focus on the quality of premisesto meet curriculum or management needs andother issues impacting on the role of the LEA inraising education standards.

Although described separately, in reality more thanone of these elements may be addressed in a singleproject. For example, many of the advantagesgained by designing suitability for curriculum intobuildings should be achieved through projectswhich have been funded to tackle deficiencies incondition or to provide places.

Stage 4. Determining priorities. Using informa-tion provided in Stages 2 and 3, and in consultationwith the other partners, LEAs will need to seek aconsensus on local premises priorities. To enableschools to focus their funding applications on thoseareas which are most likely to attract funding, it maybe helpful for the LEA to set out the agreed prioritiesin standard formats and circulate copies to schools.

Stage 5. Feasibility studies and option appraisal.This stage involves establishing the feasibility ofalternative potential solutions to priority problems.For larger projects, consideration of a range of optionsis needed for a rationally based decision. Two “base-line” options would be the “status quo” and “dominimum” options. For each option, analysis of themain costs and benefits will establish the mosteffective and economic solution. This will normallyinvolve the use of investment appraisal techniques.

Stage 6. Implementation, review and evaluation.Implementation. In this stage, favoured options arefurther developed, funding and procurement issuesare finalised, and approved schemes would beincluded with the appropriate capital programmesof LEAs or schools. On completion of new works,and consistent with good stewardship of the premises,LEAs/schools should draw up and implement plannedmaintenance programmes. Similar programmesshould be put in place for existing school premises.

Review. AMPs are dynamic in nature. The outcomesfrom capital and maintenance programmes willtherefore need to be reflected within the ongoingupdating and review of the Plan, in terms ofreprioritisation of projects, identification of newneeds, etc.

Evaluation. It will be necessary to evaluate howwell the Plan has worked in practice, some two orthree years after introduction, in the first instance.As part of this process, the nature of the localsituation at the outset will need to be clear to ensurethat the effect of the Plan can be separated fromunderlying factors.

How DfEE will use LEA AMPs

Over time, DfEE plans to increasingly use theevidence from AMPs to inform the nationaldistribution of capital resources for schools, andmake less use of the one-off, mainly annual, biddingsystems that have operated in recent years.

A key output from the AMP would be a prioritisedprogramme, regularly updated, of projects thataddress the most serious and urgent needs of theLEA’s school building stock in terms of condition,sufficiency and suitability. Where this is under-pinned by a sound planning process, DfEE wouldaim to be able to respect those priorities and allowLEAs to tackle their needs with no further inter-vention from the Department. DfEE’s interventioncould then be in inverse proportion to LEAs’success in developing and maintaining an effectiveAMP process.

16

The DfEE will need to ensure that applications fromLEAs for capital support are soundly based. Mecha-nisms are therefore planned to assess the robust-ness of AMPs. These will need to cover the qualityof the Plan itself and of the underlying processes.These will include:

• the thoroughness of the LEA’s consultations withschools;

• the commitment the LEA has secured fromschools to the way it approaches the assessmentof their premises;

• the objectivity, transparency and fairness withwhich the LEA prioritises capital applicationsacross all schools;

• the realism of the LEA’s plans to maintain andmonitor the development of the AMP.

Next steps

To facilitate the development of AMPs, the DfEEwill be shortly publishing further guidance onstandard methods for assessing the condition,sufficiency and suitability of school buildings.Guidance will also be produced to encourage thedevelopment of a common framework for propertyinformation systems in LEAs.

This article was contributed by Alan Jones of the DfEE.

ALBANIAN MODELSCHOOLThe school soon to be completed in Paskuqan, asuburb of Tirana, was created to meet the present andchanging needs of the community. The long-lasting,flexible structure designed to stimulate learning is theresult of a close collaboration between pedagogicaland building experts. The Albania EducationDevelopment Project (AEDP) of the Soros Foundationhas financed the school – for pupils in the first eightyears of education – as part of its larger programme tofoster the country’s educational system.

Design for education

The design team has taken care to maintain structuralquality while providing for the school’s educationaland extra-curricular vocations. The building’s interiorand exterior environments are expressly planned tofacilitate the work of the pupils and teachers. Centredupon efforts of modernisation, the constructionexceeds current Albanian building standards.

The final blueprint was chosen because of itscomposition of functional units. Teaching areas,administrative offices, faculty rooms and sportsfacilities are grouped according to function.Elementary grades (ages six to nine) and juniorsecondary grades (ages ten to thirteen) are separatedbut share an administrative centre, a centralmultifunctional hall and a gymnasium. Each gradesystem has its own entrance, and its classroomscommunicate internally; the corridors of bothsections lead to a spacious multifunctional area thatcan be used by part or all of the school for meetings,festivals or recreational activities. Administrativeoffices are located on each of the three floors of thebuilding conveying easy access, while they are alsoconnected by an independent staircase. The school’sfunctional sections, in addition to offering inde-pendence, has facilitated construction in stages.

The project allows for a variety of teaching possibi-lities. Of vital importance is the classroom, wherestudents learn through group work, experimentationand independent research. The architect wassensitive to the direct influence of a room’s physicalqualities on the effectiveness of teaching such as itssize, shape, height, lighting, colour and furniture.Each of the sixteen classrooms is rectangular with acapacity of 30 seats and a surface area of 1.4 m2 perstudent. Furniture and equipment can be arranged forvarious purposes depending on the subject of studyand the teaching method. Classroom layout for thesocial sciences, for instance, encourages conversationand interaction. For the natural sciences, the layoutgives priority to working individually and in smallgroups. Five special study rooms (e.g. physics andchemistry laboratories) provide greater possibilities forexperimental work.

Corridors, perceived by the architect as anindispensable means of communication, weredesigned with optimum dimensions for comfortablemovement. A central staircase connects all of thefloors, and each school cycle has its own staircase

The Paskuqan School project

17

Sports area

Administration

Junior secondary grades

Elementary grades

11

1 1 1 1

18

19

17

16

15

1 1 1

13

12

14

9

9 8

6

7

5

43

2

13

14

10

11

which can also serve for emergency evacuation. Thehydro-sanitary installations, electricity and centralheating system were equally designed with the vitalfunctioning of the school in mind.

The school’s location in the community, the slopeof the terrain, solar orientation and climate weretaken into consideration in the planning. Theconstruction reflects traditional Albanian architec-ture, and finishing emphasises the school’s aestheticvalues. The grounds harmonise naturally with thebuilding. The quality of the project, the spatialdivision and solid building materials – reinforcedconcrete and brick – will contribute to a long lifefor the Paskuqan school.

Role in the community

The Paskuqan school is expected to create closeties with the community and the local government.The structure will be used for cultural, sports and

municipal activities organised for the community. Inaddition, investment in a new school building iscertain to have a positive influence on the commu-nity’s perception of the worthiness of education.

Costs

Albania has undergone important demographicchanges since 1990. The State is faced with the urgenttask of reconstructing many existing educationalbuildings particularly in certain rural areas. At thesame time, the State is constructing new schools,though funds for these are insufficient to meet theneeds of the country.

The Paskuqan school is being built at a cost ofUS$1 280 000 (of which US$360 000 is for thegymnasium), or US$300 per square metre. Thoughthis is above the cost of most educational build-ings in Albania, which range from US$230 toUS$260/m2, it is equivalent to the average cost ofAlbanian buildings on the whole.

Following the success of the Paskuqan project, theAEDP is constructing three larger model schools inTirana. These improvements however come at a timewhen the situation in Albania creates an unfavour-able atmosphere for teaching and learning.

For more information, contact Vera Kavaja, architect,AEDP, Open Society Foundation, Rr. ThemistokliGërmenji, Nr. 3/1, Tirana, Albania,Tel.: 355 42 27731, Fax: 355 42 30506,E-mail: vkavaja@aedp.soros.al

1. Classrooms2. Doctor’s office3. Dentist’s office4. Library5. Guard’s office6. Director’s office7. Secretary’s office8. Electrical room9. Corridors10. Multipurpose hall11. Boiler room12. Service room13. Girls’ restrooms14. Boys’ restrooms15. Girls’ locker room16. Boys’ locker room17. Teachers’ locker room18. Storage19. Gymnasium

Ground floor plan

The Paskuqan School nearing completion

18

AN INNOVATIVESCHOOL IN TORCY,FRANCEThe Torcy Junior High School is located on theoutskirts of the new town of Marne la Vallée in theParis suburbs, between a motorway and a stretch ofordinary countryside on a site overlooking a smalllake. The school has a capacity of 400 pupils and asurface area of 4 457 m2. It was designed by Avant-Travaux and was completed in 1997. Specialattention was paid to its geographic setting and tothe various aspects of its environment, from itsintegration into the surrounding landscape to thedesign of its interior space. This awareness of theschool’s environment is matched by the high qualityof the construction and careful attention to details.

An original architectural approach

The school is located in an evolving, partly urban,partly rural area in which contradictory elementsabound. It responds to this setting by combiningtwo conflicting styles, characteristic of the city andthe countryside respectively. By juxtaposing thesestyles, the architecture stresses contrasts and playson differences.

The building’s design combines two quite distinctelements, a concrete base and a rectangular structurewhich appears to have been suspended over it. Thebase follows the contour of the ground, its sunkenoval patio seeming almost to be a natural feature ofthe landscape. It resembles a cavern, an undulatingspace with a rough and irregular texture, the walls ofwhich are unified by the same veined patterns in theconcrete. Those entering the building see it as anopen area that leads to all the school’s activities.

On top of this concrete base, the architects haveplaced a rectangular structure, the sophistication andbeauty of which derive from the materials chosen.The façade’s lacquered steel walls, which containcopper and cobalt pigments, change colour in theshifting light, from indigo to mauve pink to areddish-brown burnt sienna. The colours shimmer,and the glittering steel structure seems to be inperpetual movement whether it is seen in brightsunlight, in shadow, or lit from behind. It is a luxuriousdecoration that adds beauty to a simple form.

The school grounds and the landscapeThe conception of the school grounds played a keyrole in the design of the project as a whole. The projectoriginally included an orchard, but it was ultimately

not planted because of disagreements among thevarious local authorities. The ground floor seems toform part of the land itself, with its veined concretewalls that resemble strata in the earth. The patio slopesnaturally downwards to the courtyard.

The classrooms are located in the upper part of thebuilding. They are painted white and have been givenas many windows as possible. Although the classroomsare quiet when the windows are closed, it can be verynoisy when the wind is blowing from a certaindirection because of the proximity of the motorway,which was an unavoidable planning constraint.

All the openings in the façade at ground floor levelwere carefully designed so that they would affordviews of the countryside. The architects also gavespecial thought to recreational areas by designing anumber of areas with no specific function. These are“free” areas, such as outdoor terraces, the patio andcirculation routes in the upper part of the building,that pupils and staff members can occupy and useas they wish.

Space and light inside the building

There are no corridors in the building, which isbrightly lit with natural light. Large picture win-dows and ceilings twice the normal height give cir-culation areas a spaciousness that is unusual for aschool building. Windows are strategically placedso as to take full advantage of views of the coun-tryside, woods and ponds. The circulation areas,which are much like galleries, are lit from above

Torcy Junior High School

19

or receive light from the central oval courtyard. Forexample, the documentation and information cen-tre is located above the main entrance to the play-ground and opens onto the countryside throughlarge windows shaded by metal sunscreens.

Conclusion: the cavern and the lorry

This dualistic project is based on a series ofcontrasts: earth, mineral, organic, heavy andopaque, on the one hand, and sky, metallic,technological, light and transparent on the other.It combines two environments, the town and thecountry, each represented by two elements thatjoin and reconcile them, even though, suspendedone above the other, they have little or nothingin common. The result is a harmony based onthe contrast between the motorway and the roll-ing countryside, in which the upper part of thebuilding is like a vehicle that has left themotorway and is in suspended motion over thecavern of the building’s base.

The school is a most unusual structure but one whichis integrated into its surroundings, between town andcountry and the motorway, and which tries toreconcile the aesthetics of clean lines, movementand tension with the more peaceful beauty of thelandscape and its contours.

A significant number of schools have introduced theconcept of “open education” and every provincialauthority is responsible for producing a model foropen education. As new teaching programmes involveboth individual and group work to respect differingways of learning, school authorities are opting forclassrooms with individual work tables that can bearranged for group discussion. The need remains formulti-purpose spaces, including learning resourcecentres with a library and video room. One exampleof flexibility common in Korean schools is classroomswhich are open to the corridors, so the latter can beused for teaching if required.

Educational systemKorea’s educational system is structured as follows:

• elementary school – compulsory: 6 years, forages 6-11;

• middle school: 3 years, for ages 12-14;• high school (general or vocational): 3 years, for

ages 15-17;• college/university: two-year junior college or

four-year college/university.

After completing compulsory primary education,nearly all young people continue on to middleschool. Students must pass an entrance examinationto enter high school, and approximately 90 per centare successful. High schools are generally dividedinto two categories, general or vocational schools.

Private institutions make up 35 per cent of second-ary schools and 83 per cent of post-secondaryinstitutions. State-owned facilities most often offermore space per student than private ones, and theGovernment recently laid out plans to expand non-curricular facilities such as dormitories and studentcultural centres.

At the level of higher education, in addition to colleges,institutions called “open universities” provide instruc-tion to the adult community and employed youth.

EDUCATIONALFACILITIES IN KOREAA programme is currently underway in Korea tomodernise school buildings and equipment in orderto better meet today’s teaching needs. During the 1970sand 80s the Korean Government reformed its educa-tional system, making fundamental changes in teach-ing methods, class time and curricula with a movetoward open education in elementary schools and anindividualised interactive learning approach in middleand high schools. In 1993, the Korean Institute ofEducational Facilities was created to study buildingdesigns and equipment, such as computers, whichwould be suited for the new curricula. Composed ofcivil servants and experts in education and architecture,the Institute publishes its findings four times a year.

Most school facilities at the primary and secondarylevels are not yet adapted to the reformed curriculaand lack adequate conditions for a variety of teachingmethods, but local authorities have made step-by-step plans to renovate their facilities.

Source: Statistical Year Book of Education 1997, Ministry of Education,Korea.

Elementaryschools

Highschools

Highereducationinstitutions

Middleschools

Number of schools/institutions

Numberof students

Floor areaper student

Site area perstudent

Numbers of Schools and Students in Korea; Available Space

5 721 2 720 1 892 316

3 783 000 2 180 000 2 336 000 2 112 000

5.2 m2 5.0 m2 5.9 m2 9.9 m2

9.5 m2 7.5 m2 12.3 m2 42.7 m2

20

detailed planning of campus development and reviewstheir individual development plans.

There is a growing tendency for universities locatedin dense metropolitan areas to move their campusesto the outskirts of town. Such a move can offer amore pleasant environment, allow for further expan-sion and in some cases permit the university toconsolidate previously scattered campuses.

In the early 1980s rapid growth in student numbersat the tertiary level created high demand forfacilities. As demand has reached a plateau,resources are now being directed toward buildingmaintenance, equipment and generally improvingthe learning environment.

Information and technology developments

Korean local educational authorities furnish eachelementary and middle school with one or twocomputer classrooms. There are plans to supplycomputer network systems as well as Pentium-levelpersonal computers to those schools whosecomputers are out of date.

A number of universities are well equipped in thearea of information technology. Some universities,in addition to having advanced computer programs,have computers in every laboratory and professor’soffice; they are connected to networks used foradministrative and instructional purposes. Thesenetworks allow students on campus to communi-cate with people off campus and, via Internet, withothers around the world.

For further information, contact Gi Nam Kim, Director, Education Facilities Division,Ministry of Education, Sejong-ro Chongro-ku,Seoul 110-760, Korea,Tel.: 82 2 720 3306, Fax: 82 2 730 6068.

A classroom for “open education” at theShinchang Elementary School, in the Cheju Province.

Administrative system

The Korean Government is the policy-maker forprimary and secondary education, while localeducation authorities implement the policies. Withinthe Ministry of Education, building stock is the respon-sibility of the Education Facilities Division of theEducation Environment Improvement Bureau. TheDivision finances facilities for schools as well as forinstitutions of higher education and provides technicalsupport for building construction.

A large part of the educational administration systemhas been decentralised in an effort to better meet thediverse needs of local education. The Ministry ofEducation delegates much of its budget planning andmajor administrative decisions to local authoritiesregarding school buildings in their area. Korea counts180 district offices of education along with sevenmetropolitan and nine provincial offices. Their workis evaluated by the Ministry.

Standardisation of educational facilities

Standards for educational facilities established bythe Ministry of Education exist for each school level.They regulate the number of facilities – schoolbuildings as well as classrooms, laboratories,libraries, etc. – according to student numbers. Thestandards serve to evaluate the capacity of existingschools and determine the need for new ones.

Trends in schooling

Local development planning requires securingadequate sites for city schools in anticipation of theprojected rise in the urban student population, a taskthat is becoming increasingly difficult.

Rural areas on the other hand have suffered a declinein student population as people have migrated to urbanareas, leaving behind a surplus of classrooms inprimary and middle schools in continual need of main-tenance. In response the Government is now replac-ing every three to five lower level schools with onecombined elementary and middle school. The schoolsto be closed, many of them built 40 or more yearsago, will be torn down or where possible convertedinto special classrooms or facilities.

Newly built or renovated schools in the country aredesigned with rooms for adult continuing education,thereby providing services for people of all ages in thecommunity.

Facilities for higher education

The Ministry of Education supplies each nationalinstitution of higher education with a framework for

21

USEFUL WEB SITES FOR EDUCATION AND BUILDING

………………………………………………………

ARGO (Autonome Raad voor hetGemeenschapsonderwijs)

http://www.argo.be

Belgium

Albania Education DevelopmentProject

http://soros.org/aedp.html

Albania

Province of Quebec, Directiongénérale du financement et deséquipements

http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/dgfe/inter.htm

Canada

Ministry of Education, Youth andSports

http://www.msmt.cz/

Czech Republic

Ministry of Education, Science andCulture

http://www.mrn.stjr.is

Iceland

Emilia-Romagna Region

http://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/

Tuscany Region, Servizio Istruzionee Politiche per l’Educazione

http://www.regione.toscana.it/ita/uff/poledu/educa/educazio.htm

Italy

Republic and Canton of Geneva,Département de l’Instruction Publique

http://www.geneve.ch/dip/main_enseignement.htm

Switzerland

Ministry of Education

http://www.education.gov.sk/

Slovak Republic

Ministry of Education, Departamentode Gestão de Recursos Educativos

http://www.min-edu.pt/degre/

Portugal

Ministry of Education

http://www.moe.go.kr/

Korea

Tokyo Institute of Technology

http://www.titech.ac.jp/

Japan

22

140

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

140

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

UK (Eng

land

)

Austra

lia

Cana

da

Unite

d-St

ates

Denm

ark

New-Z

eala

nd

Austria

Swed

en

Japa

n

Icel

and

Switz

erla

nd

Nethe

rland

s

Fran

ce

Belgi

um (F

r)

Belgi

um (F

l)

Germ

any

Hunga

ry

Norway

Korea

Greec

e

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Spai

n

Portu

gal

PEB & OECD PUBLICATIONS

Facilities for Tertiary Education in the 21st CenturyJune 1998, 92 pp., OECD code: 95 98 02 1P,ISBN 92-64-16081-7FF 70 US$ 12 DM 20 £ 7 ¥ 1 500

Under One Roof: The Integration of Schools andCommunity Services in OECD CountriesJuly 1998, 65 pp., OECD code: 95 98 03 1P,ISBN 92-64-16110-4FF 120 US$ 20 DM 36 £ 12 ¥ 2 550

Education Policy Analysis, 1998 EditionSeptember 1998, 84 pp., OECD code: 96 98 05 1P,ISBN 92-64-16128-7FF 120 US$ 20 DM 36 £ 12 ¥ 2 750

Education at a Glance - OECD Indicators, 1998 EditionNovember 1998, 436 pp., OECD code: 96 98 04 1P,ISBN 92-64-16127-9FF 295 US$ 49 DM 88 £ 30 ¥ 6 700

The 1998 edition of Education at a Glance - OECDIndicators provides a richer, more comparable andup-to-date array of indicators than ever before. Theindicators represent the consensus of professionalthinking on how to measure the current state ofeducation internationally. They provide informationon the human and financial resources invested ineducation, on how education and learning systems

School Grounds: A Guide to Good Practice, BuildingBulletin 85, Department for Education and Employment,Architects & Building Branch, September 1997ISBN 0-11-270990-7, £19.95; The Publications Centre,PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT, UK.Tel.: 44 171 873 9090, Fax: 44 171 873 8200.

Guidelines for Environmental Design in Schools, BuildingBulletin 87 (Revision of Design Note 17), Department forEducation and Employment, Architects & Building Branch,October 1997ISBN 0-11-271013-1, £13.95; The Publications Centre,PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT, UK.

The School, the Community and Lifelong Learning by JudithD. Chapman and David N. Aspin, 1997ISBN 0-304-33285-2; Cassell, Wellington House, 125 Strand,London WC2R 0BB, UK.

Provisional Guidance on Asset Management Plans, DfEEConsultation Paper, Department for Education and Employ-ment, August 1998, free publication; DfEE PublicationsCentre, PO Box 5050, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6ZQ, UK.Tel.: 44 845 602 2260, Fax: 44 845 603 3360.

L’état de l’École n° 8, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, dela Recherche et de la Technologie, October 1998ISBN 2-11-090825-4, FF 95; DP&D - BED, 58, boulevarddu Lycée, 92170 Vanves, France.Tel.: 33(0)1 55 55 72 04, Fax: 33(0)1 55 55 72 29.

operate and evolve and on the returns to educationalinvestments. The thematic organisation of the volumeand the background information accompanying thetables and charts make this publication a valuableresource for anyone interested in analysing educationsystems across countries.

Indicators on the use of computers in schools is oneexample of data provided. The chart above is takenfrom the chapter devoted to “The Learning Environ-ment and the Organisation of Schools”.

New Environments for Working, The Re-design of Officesand Environmental Systems for New Ways of Working byAndrew Laing, Francis Duffy, Denice Jaunzens and SteveWillis, 1998ISBN 0-419-209905; BRE, Construction Research Communi-cations Ltd, 151 Rosebery Avenue, London, EC1R 4QX, UK.Tel.: 44 171 505 6622, Fax: 44 171 505 6606.

“Pratiques corporelles et évolution du mobilier scolairedu XIXe siècle à nos jours” by J. Peyranne and J.F. d’IvernoisAnn. Kinésithér., 1998, t. 25, n° 3, pp. 119-124, Masson, ParisJ. Peyranne, BP 12, 60260 Lamorlaye, France.

Ville, architecture, université, Ministère de l’Éducationnationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, 1998270 FF; Éditions du Moniteur, 17, rue d’Uzès, 75018 ParisCedex 02, France.Tel.: 33 (0)1 40 13 30 05, Fax: 33 (0)1 40 41 08 87.Since the early 1990s nearly 1000 construction or renovationprojects, totalling 4 million m2, have been completed in Franceas part of the Ministry of Education’s University 2000 pro-gramme. A selection of 120 buildings, including severaldesigned for student housing, are analysed here in detail withplans and photographs. The history and principles behind theU 2000 development scheme – including the return ofuniversities to the city centre and the transition from teachingreserved for an elite to quality higher education for a largernumber of students – are set out in this reference for a betterunderstanding of today’s challenges of campus planning.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Source: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)/TIMSS.

Chart E6.1. Average number of students per computer in schoolswhere 8th-grade students are enrolled (1995)

23

ORDERINGIf you do not already subscribe to PEB Exchange and wouldlike to do so, please return the coupon below to one of thefollowing addresses.

AustraliaD.A. Information Services648 Whitehorse Road, P.O.B. 163Mitcham, Victoria 3132Tel.: 61 (0)3 9210 7777Fax: 61 (0)3 9210 7788E-mail: service@dadirect.com.au

GermanyOECD Bonn CentreAugust-Bebel-Allee 6D-53175 BonnTel.: 49 (0) 228 959 12 15Fax: 49 (0) 228 959 12 18E-mail: bonn.contact@oecd.org

ItalyLibreria Commissionaria SansoniVia Duca di Calabria, 1/150125 FlorenceTel.: 39 (0)55 64 54 15Fax: 39 (0)55 64 12 57E-mail: licosa@ftbcc.it

JapanOECD Tokyo CentreLandic Akasaka Building2-3-4 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107Tel.: 81 3 3586 2016Fax: 81 3 3584 7929E-mail: tokyo.contact@oecd.org

KoreaKyobo Book Centre Co. Ltd.P.O. Box 1658, Kwang Hwa MoonSeoulTel.: 82 2 397 3479Fax: 82 2 735 0030E-mail: kyobo2.@uriel.net

MexicoOECD Mexico CentreAv. San Fernando 37Ed. Infotec, Col. Toriello GuerraDel. Tlalplan, Mexico, D.F., C.P. 14050Tel.: 525 528 10 38Fax: 525 606 13 07E-mail: ocde@rtn.net.mx

United KingdomHMSO, PO Box 276, London SW8 5DTTel.: 44 (0) 171 873 00 11Fax: 44 (0) 171 873 84 63

United StatesOECD Washington Center2001 L St. NW, Suite 650Washington D.C. 20036-4922Tel.: 1 202 785 6323Fax: 1 202 785 03 50E-mail: washcont@oecd.org

France and all other countriesOECD Publications2, rue André-Pascal75775 Paris Cedex 16, FranceFax: 33 (0)1 49 10 42 76E-mail: sales@oecd.orgWeb site: http://www.oecd.org

PEB Exchange, OECD Publications, printed in France.

I would like to subscribe to PEB Exchange (88 00 00 1)1999 annual subscription price (3 issues): FF 200, US$ 39, £ 22, DM 60, ¥ 4 500

Name: _______________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________________

❏ Cheque or money order enclosed.

❏ VISA No. _______________________________

❏ Mastercard No. _______________________________

❏ Eurocard No. _______________________________

Expiry Date: ___________________________

Signature: ____________________________

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

PEBEXCHANGE

the journal of the OECDProgramme on

Educational Bui lding

© OECD(88 99 36 1)

OECD/PEB2, rue André-Pascal

75775 Paris Cedex 16, FranceTel. : 33 (0)1 45 24 92 60Fax: 33 (0)1 42 24 02 11

http://www.oecd.org/els/edu/peb/els_peb.htm

E-mail: richard.yelland@oecd.org

Richard YellandHead of the Programme

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC

CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

1999 subscription (3 issues):FF 200 US$ 39 £ 22

DM 60 ¥ 4 500

(Single issue: FF 80)

BP E

PEB DIARY

March

24-26 – Higher Education and Disability, a conference organised jointly bythe OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation and the FrenchMinistry of Education, will be held in Grenoble, France.

Contact: Peter Evans, Fax: 33 (0)1 45 24 91 12, E-mail: peter.evans@oecd.org

May

2-5 – A Framework for Quality: Evaluating Evaluation. This conference or-ganised by the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies inHigher Education will take place in Santiago, Chile.Contact: INQAAHE Secretariat, Tel.: 56 2 362 0823, Fax: 56 2 362 0826,E-mail: turevent@reuna.cl

June

16-18 – PEB will hold a seminar on designing schools for the informationsociety, with special attention to libraries and resource centres. For moreinformation, contact the PEB Secretariat.

20-24 – The New Educational Frontier: Teaching and Learning in a NetworkedWorld is the topic of the 19th World Conference on Open Learning and DistanceEducation. It will be held in Vienna, Austria.

For details see http://www.icde.org, or contact the International Councilfor Distance Education, Tel.: 47 22 95 06 30, Fax: 47 22 95 07 19,E-mail: icde@icde.no

23-26 – 20th UIA Congress: Architecture of the 21st Century. Sub-themes ofthis congress in Beijing, Peoples Republic of China, will cover architecturaleducation, environment, urbanism, culture, professionalism and technology.

Contact: International Union of Architects, 51, rue Raynouard, 75016 Paris,France, Tel.: 33 (0)1 45 24 36 88, Fax: 33 (0)1 45 24 02 78.

July

24-28 – Enterprising Education for the New Millennium. The 34th annualinternational conference and exposition of the Society for College andUniversity Planning will take place in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Visit http://www.scup.org/34.htm or contact SCUP, Tel.: 1 734 998 7832,Fax: 1 734 998 6532, E-mail: scup@umich.edu

October

24-29 – The Changing Infrastructure of Tertiary Education. This PEB/IMHEconference will include study visits to post-secondary educational facilitiesin Quebec and Montreal. Contact: PEB Secretariat.

30-31 – PEB will co-host an international symposium on the maintenanceand renewal of building stock, security and information technology inBaltimore, Maryland, USA. Contact: PEB Secretariat.

The views expressed in PEB Exchange are the contributors’ own and do not necessarily represent those of the OECD Secretariat.