Design for Changing Educational Needs

Hugh Skinner, REFP, MCIP

Hugh Skinner, REFP, MCIP, is the president of the Council of Educational Facility Planners International. He has been an active and continuous member of CEFPI since 1986, involved at the chapter, regional and international level, including work with the CEFPI Foundation and Charitable Trust.

Skinner, who is also an associate, Facilities Planning and Operations, at Stantec, has worked for three different public school districts over the past 20 years in the field of educational facilities planning. In his interview with School Construction News, he explains his philosophy that successful public school education increasingly depends on the quality of the facilities in which it is presented.

Q: Would you tell our readers a little about yourself?

A: I worked in municipal governments for many years. I went back to the university and did a degree in city and regional planning. As part of that I did my thesis on adaptive reuse of surplus school buildings. That’s how I became professionally aware of the Council of Educational Facility Planners International. It was the primary research organization that was available at that time in terms of documentation associated with school facilities, so as a result I became involved with it. That was about 20 years ago. CEFPI, I found out, is the best international organization in terms of research, documentation and professional development and advocacy with regard to educational facilities planning, covering the spectrum from pretty initial conceptualization projects through the planning and design.

Q: What are your goals as the new president for CEFPI?

A: I work within an overall vision that children who learn in the best school facilities are the ones that are in facilities planned by CEFPI members. I have three specific goals. One, to expand the body of research and information on educational facilities; two, to enhance the quality and variety of training opportunities for our members, and three, to advocate for the best possible learning environment for all children.

Q: Is one year enough time in which to address your ideas and concerns?

A: My approach is that we are all on a mission and the road to improving educational facilities planning is not 365 days long. It started before me and it will continue after my term as CEFPI president. My goals are to achieve some measurable outcomes in the spectrum, including the fostering and funding of more educational facilities and research that’s associated with educational facilities; increasing the quantity and quality of professional development opportunities that we have for our members at the local level; developing joint advocacy initiatives with other non-profit organizations; and lastly enabling the growth of CEFPI beyond North America.

Q: How did your background in city planning affect the way you address planning facilities for a school district when you were director of facilities at Rocky View School Division in Alberta?

A: When I was with the Rocky View School Division there were 11 different county governments and city governments that we worked with. I found that my background, in terms of understanding the professional companies that are associated with city planning and rural planning, as well as the framework with which those planners have to work in terms of reviewing development applications and facilities applications, as well as the political environment in which they worked, helped me to understand the responsibilities they have for overall community land-use development and how schools perform within that framework. Conversely, as a school facilities planner working on behalf of school districts, I advocated for the quality of school facilities within that overall community land-use planning framework.

Q: What would you say is the biggest challenge school district facility planners face?

A: The biggest challenge, I would say, at this time, is lack of funding. That occurs at many different levels. First of all it starts at the deferred maintenance level. There is quite a significant backlog of projects that are required to be undertaken due to the age of many facilities in school districts throughout North America. That’s the major challenge we face, to address deferred maintenance. A change in demographics is also a challenge.

Q: What do you envision in a school of the future?

A: A school of the future will not be one size/one shape fits all. Society is changing, along with the pace of societal, cultural and economic change – it is occurring and continuing on an upward curve. School facilities and the planning will be directly impacted by requests to change the curriculum delivery model, the instructional delivery model and the programming that goes into schools. In other words, we are going to be faced with the challenge of not building custom-built facilities, we’re going to be faced with a challenge of building facilities that can adapt and change much more quickly than they have in the past.

Q: Do you see any trends for the future?

A: In terms of school buildings, I’d say that the single biggest trend in North America is the move away from comprehensive neighborhood elementary schools and high schools toward more customized schools or magnet schools, specialized schools with specialized programs.

Q: What is your work like at Stantec? Are you still primarily in the education sector?

A: I joined Stantec last fall and my work there is primarily in the education sector with regard to the planning of school facilities.

Q: Is your work at Stantec similar to the work you’ve done in school district?

A: It’s similar in the sense that I’m doing the same type of work but I’m doing it now as a consultant working for school districts that do not have the in-house resources to fulfill the same type of work I was doing when I worked with the districts. Typically, school districts are faced with different economies of scale in terms of what level of specialist they can hire in-house and then where they have to look outside of the school district for consultants to assist them in facilities planning.

Q: Would you approach a demographic assessment of a rural school division in the same way you would an urban area?

A: No, it would be substantially different. The rural school district and the character and nature of its communities and the history that’s associated with them are quite different from an urban environment in terms of the nature of the clientele you’re working with. There is also what I would add as a third area, which is the suburban area. Basically there is inner-city urban and then there is suburban urban. I would say there are very significant demographic changes associated with that. In the suburban areas you still find a preponderance of people who are looking for comprehensive schools, whether they be neighborhood elementary schools or comprehensive high schools that serve all needs and purposes.

We’re finding, in the redevelopment of urban areas, the phenomenon of the magnet school, special interest schools, charter schools – anything that is different from the norm. There is much stronger interest in that in the large urban inner-city communities, whereas in rural areas, due to the nature of geography and population density, it’s very difficult for them to consider models other than the traditional rural school.

Q: How often do school demographics need to be assessed?

A: Really, I’d say that there are different levels of thinking regarding demographic assessments. No. 1 is assessment on an annual basis because schools typically, in terms of the neighborhood context, are very small geographic units. The demographics have to be assessed on an annual basis for short-term requirements, such as staffing or either adding or taking away relocatables.

Also on an annual basis, there would be medium-term requirements. If a school district has had a bond passed and is looking at the phasing and timing of capital projects, the review of the demographics on an annual basis helps with the phasing and timing of those projects. In other words, one project may be higher on the list due to a changing demographic whereas because the demographics are not looking as favorably as they did when a bond was passed, another project may slip down the list.

On a five-year basis there is more of a strategic analysis that is required. This may typically occur, for example, when a school district is considering putting together a bond issue or levy. That would be more of a strategic thinking process with regard to the number of schools that are required; more of a master-plan type of process. That would be once every five years. That time period may vary depending on the pace of growth associated with some areas. For example, Clark County in Las Vegas, where they build 10 to 15 new schools every year, would probably have to assess that on a more frequent basis.

Q: What excites you most about your work?

A: What I really like is working with people. I really enjoy bringing the planning process to a group of people who have an idea, a concept, and are looking for someone who has some outside expertise they can bring to the table. It’s a process for them to get from point “A” to the eventual completion and occupancy of the school building. It’s a rewarding process to be involved with. And, of course, to be in school buildings working with children. Children are our future; it is a great area and field of endeavor to be involved with.

Q: Would you say Canada and the United States are facing the same issues with their school buildings?

A: I’d say that you’d be amazed at how much overlap there is. You can go into a science lab in a high school in Taos, N.M., and you can go into a science lab in a high school in Vancouver, Canada, and you’d find very little difference in terms of the quality and type of instruction that takes place in those facilities, as well as what they physically look like. It’s the same with kindergarten classrooms. They are very similar in terms of their outcomes. The issues are also very similar. We have a lot of deferred maintenance in Canada as well as in the United States. We have changing demographics; those are the two issues I’ve seen.

The third, which I can relate to, although it doesn’t directly have to do with educational facilities is educational instruction and the outcome that’s impacting us all, which is the U.S. initiative of “No Child Left Behind.” Although it’s been manifested by the U. S. federal government, the general trend associated with that initiative is one of accountability and how we bring that accountability into the various structures we have in place in both the United States and Canada in terms of our public educational systems. It means that the public and politicians are holding us much more accountable for the types of schools we design and how we design them, and for actually having a measurable outcome at the end, in terms of success.

Q: Do you have any final comments?

A: Well, I’m going to speak as a Canadian here. I really have found CEFPI to be the best organization for facilities planning. I’ve had the opportunity to potentially become a member of many other organizations and I have, from time to time, been a member. I’ve consistently found in researching and evaluating other organizations, their publications and the type of work they do and their values, as well as the opportunities for professional development, I can continually come back to CEFPI as the best organization in all those areas, not only in the U. S. and Canada but also internationally.

I also want to thank your paper, School Construction News, for all the help and support you’ve given CEFPI over the years. Your paper has been a very strong supporter, and the way I interpret that is that you’re very strong advocates for education for children.