# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
City and school officials in Baltimore were delighted earlier this month when the Maryland General Assembly approved a plan to spend about $1 billion to repair and modernize worn down school facilities in the city. Over 10 years, the money will enable the Baltimore City district to renovate or replace 45 to 55 buildings.

"Today is a great and historic day," district CEO Andres Alonso said in a message to district staff when the legislation passed. "It is historic because lawmakers from around the state have come together in a shared commitment to the students of Baltimore City, and a shared acknowledgment of the tremendous need they face for better learning environments."

But the sizable investment in better school facilities represents less than half of unmet facility needs in Baltimore. The district's 10-year plan, detailed in a 220-page report, "21st-Century Buildings for Our Kids," says Baltimore would need cost $2.452 billion to bring its public school buildings up to minimally acceptable standards.

The situation is one that plays out frequently in schools and universities throughout the nation. Education institutions are grateful for whatever funding they can acquire to repair aging and outdated facilities, but the money they receive typically falls short of what is needed to provide students with adequate learning environments. Less critical maintenance tasks are set aside, and the list of deferred maintenance projects grows while schools wait for additional funds that never materialize.

By the numbers

How large a number must be attached to the problem of deferred maintenance in U.S. school facilities to persuade decisionmakers to give high priority to the state of educational facilities? Over more than 20 years, different organizations, public and private, have looked at the deficiencies in school infrastructure and have come up with a wide range of estimates of how much it would cost to bring education facilities into good condition.

Although the numbers vary, the findings had this in common: The money that was being allocated to address the problem was inadequate, and the problem would become only worse as buildings continued to wear out and break down.

Among the reports calling attention to deferred maintenance in schools:

*In 1989, the Education Writers Association released a report, "Wolves at the Schoolhouse Door," that stated that public schools needed $41 billion to address facility maintenance and repairs.

*A 1992 report on the state of school facilities by the American Association of School Administrators, "Schoolhouse in the Red," estimated that public school systems had more than $100 million in deferred maintenance projects.

*In 1995, the GAO (then the General Accounting Office, now renamed the Government Accountability Office) estimated that K-12 school facilities would need $112 billion to correct substandard conditions and carry out major repairs of problems such as leaking roofs, plumbing problems, inadequate heating systems or other system failures.

*The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics released a follow-up report in 2000, "Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999," to determine what repairs, renovations and modernizations were needed to bring the nation's public school buildings into good overall condition. It upped the estimate to $127 billion.

*The National Education Association also issued a report on school facilities in 2000, "Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost?" The teachers union estimated the nationwide cost of repairing, renovating, or building school facilities and installing modern educational technology at $322 billion.

*In 2009, the 21st Century School Fund, an organization that advocates for modernizing education facilities, issued a report, "Repair for Success: An Analysis of the Need and Possibilities for a Federal Investment in PK-12 School Maintenance and Repair." Using "a conservative estimate and extremely modest standards," the report determined that U.S. public school facilities had $271 million in deferred maintenance.

*In 2011, the Council of the Great City Schools surveyed 50 major urban school districts that had 5.3 million students in 8,561 schools. The districts reported having $46.7 billion in repair, renovation, and modernization needs; and $14.4 billion in deferred maintenance needs.

*Now in 2013, the U.S. Green Building Council's Center for Green Schools has issued a report, " State of Our Schools 2013," that takes the 21st Century School Fund's $271 million estimate and adds to it modernization costs that would enable U.S. schools to meet current education, safety and health standards. The grand total: $542 billion.

"If schools were to be modernized on a 25-year lifecycle-a defensible schedule, given rapid changes in building technology, educational demands and population change-$542 billion would be required over the next 10 years to modernize our pre-K-through-12th grade educational infrastructure," the report asserts.

Showing their age

When facilities are neglected for too long, the task of fixing them is one school systems can't carry out by themselves. The Baltimore district's facilities plan, "21st-Century Buildings for Our Kids," notes that 23 percent of the district's buildings were constructed before 1946, and another 74 percent were built between 1946 and 1985; only 3 percent have been constructed since 1985, most of them modular and portable.

"Costs to operate, maintain and repair old buildings that are in poor condition increase every year," the report asserts. "As the buildings get older and continue to deteriorate, the more it costs to maintain buildings from falling into further disrepair."

An assessment of Baltimore's facilities concluded that 125 of 183 school buildings were considered to be in very poor condition.

Too many students "are learning in school buildings with old boilers and no air conditioning; drinking fountains that can't be used; windows that are old, yellowed and can't be opened; and classrooms that lack the wiring to support computers," the report says.

The report made the case that Baltimore had fallen so far behind that it could not solve its facility problems without an infusion of resources.

"With an annual construction budget of approximately $56 million a year ... there is no way (Baltimore) could ever provide the school buildings its students deserve-absent a plan that is aggressive and strategic," the report says.

The plan, endorsed by the Baltimore school board in January, created an impetus for the $1 billion funding plan approved by Maryland lawmakers. A combination of funding from the state, city and school district will pay for the building improvements.

Funding gap

When maintenance tasks are put off too long, they can grow to the point that they are too costly for a school system's budget for ongoing maintenance. Districts often have to turn to their constituents to approve bond issues to cover deferred maintenance.

That was the path the Clark County (Nev.) district tried to take last year. For years one of the nation's fastest growing systems and now the fifth-largest, Clark County has spent billions of dollars constructing new campuses to provide classrooms for the burgeoning student population. But it had been straining to keep up with maintenance and repairs at older facilities, especially as economic difficulties hit the Las Vegas area hard. A $720 million tax proposal was placed on the November ballot to provide funds need for renovations at older campuses.

The ballot question was soundly defeated, and the district's maintenance and operations staff has to try to keep up with growing demands for repairs in aging buildings. With a limited staff and a massive amount of square footage to cover-more than 34 million square feet in 357 schools and 35 administrative facilities-the maintenance department faces an uphill battle carrying out its duties effectively.

Statistics show Clark County has to devote more resource to emergency and corrective jobs instead of preventive maintenance, according to a report from the district's maintenance department. Workers responded to more than 95,000 job requests in the 2011-12 school year; 5 percent were for emergency maintenance, and 81 percent were for corrective maintenance. Only 13 percent were for preventive maintenance.

The district says it has the equivalent of 430 full-time maintenance positions; industry standards suggest Clark County should have 1,212. In 1990, the district had one maintenance department staff member for every 54,255 square feet of space; in 2012, it had one maintenance worker for every 80,597 square feet. (The industry recommendation is one employee for 28,585 square feet.)

Beyond adequacy

In calling for education policymakers to act more swiftly to address deferred school maintenance, the Center for Green Schools says education institutions should not have to settle for learning environments that meet minimal standards of acceptability.

"An adequate school facility is more than just a building that is in good repair," the report contends. "A school facility needs to be safe, healthy, educationally appropriate and environmentally sustainable."

Research on how school facilities affect student performance has indicated that air quality, acoustics, levels of thermal comfort and levels of daylight affect the stress levels, health and well-being of occupants in schools, the report notes. "Studies have found that higher levels of student achievement, controlled for socio-economic status, are associated with better quality facility design and condition," the Center says.

Better data

Much of the initial attention that the Center for Green Schools report was on the budget-busting cost estimate of school facility needs, but the report's initial recommendation focuses more on gathering better information on the scope of the problem.

"Lack of sufficient, comparable (state-to-state and year-to-year) facility data aligned to basic education data is hindering our ability to address the safety, health, educational and environmental challenges of our public school facilities," the center contends. "At the federal, state, school district and individual school levels, the public needs to understand both the current extent of problems in our facilities and the educational opportunities that high quality public school facilities provide. We need to know the distribution of facility needs and the risks associated with deferred maintenance, crowded schools and insufficient capital investment."

The center wants the GAO to conduct an updated assessment of U.S. school facilities and begin doing one every 10 years. It has sent a letter sent to leaders of the education committees in the U.S. House and Senate, urging them to authorize the GAO.

"The results from a new GAO study on the condition of our school facilities would greatly benefit the hard work of school districts, teachers, parents and organizations around the country toward ensuring that every child can learn in a safe, efficient school within this generation," the letter says.

Marissa Long, public relations director for the center, says that the organization has been working with the GAO since the "State of the Schools" report was released and is confident that the office will decide to conduct another assessment of the condition of U.S. school facilities to help educators and policymakers determine the extent of the needs.

How quickly such a report would be conducted is unclear, but Long says the Center for Green Schools hopes to be involved in carrying out the assessment.

"We're making really great progress," Long says.

Sidebar: Grade=needs improvement

The American Society of Civil Engineers has assessed the condition of the nation's public school infrastructure in a way that educators will understand: A report card.

But schools won't make the honor roll with the grade: D.

That's better than the F that the engineers gave to school infrastructure in 1998, or the D-minus in 2001. The D bestowed on school facilities in 2005, 2009 and again in 2013 is an indication that schools have made some progress in addressing maintenance backlogs since greater attention was given to the issue in the 1990s, but the response has been inadequate to confront the scope of the problem.

In its 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, the society notes that since the 2008 recession, spending on education facilities has declined significantly, "while the condition of school facilities continues to be a significant concern for communities."

Like the Center for Green Schools' recent report on school facilities, the civil engineers say a key obstacle in the effort to provide enough resources for school maintenance and repairs is a lack of accurate data about the extent of the needs. The report card urges the federal government to begin providing regular updates on the condition of public school facilities nationwide.

Other recommendations for school systems and those controlling education purse strings:

*Encourage school districts to adopt regular, comprehensive major maintenance, renewal and construction programs.

*Expand federal and state tax credits and matching funds to support increased use of school construction bonds and simplify the process for school districts to obtain construction financing.

*Explore alternative financing, including lease financing and financing as well as ownership and use arrangements, to facilitate construction projects.

*Begin comprehensive preventive-maintenance programs to extend the life of school facilities.

*Require life-cycle cost analysis principles and multi-use possibilities to evaluate the total costs of projects to capture efficiency and promote sustainability.

*Encourage school facility reviews on a state level and provide input to develop a national database of conditions and available funding.

Sidebar: Higher-education needs

Most of the attention given to deferred maintenance in education facilities focuses on K-12 schools, but higher-education campuses are victims of the trend, too. Estimates of deferred maintenance at colleges and universities range from $26 billion to more than $50 billion.

A Kansas Board of Regents report from fall 2012 on deferred maintenance at eight university campuses in the state found that 433 "mission-critical" buildings had a deferred maintenance backlog of $762 million. In addition, the institutions need to spend $93 million a year in ongoing maintenance to prevent the backlog from increasing.

The maintenance backlog has arisen because of a lack of funding and the age of the facilities.

"Over the past 35 years, the universities received insufficient rehabilitation and repair funding," the report says.

The $762 million figure is lower than the $904 million identified in the Regents' Fall 2010 report. The drop is attributed in part to additional funding, such as federal stimulus allocations, and more favorable costs because of a slow economy.

In South Carolina, the state's Commission on Higher Education has estimated that as of November 2012, education and general buildings on 33 campuses in the state had $1.27 billion in building and infrastructure maintenance needs. Education and general buildings are those with 25 percent or more space dedicated to educational and general activities and that have more than 3,000 square feet.

The South Carolina campuses had 813 facilities categorized as education and general buildings.
Kennedy is staff writer for AS&U.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Falling Behind: School Maintenance & Operations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
City and school officials in Baltimore were delighted earlier this month when the Maryland General Assembly approved a plan to spend about $1 billion to repair and modernize worn down school facilities in the city. Over 10 years, the money will enable the Baltimore City district to renovate or replace 45 to 55 buildings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are you facing the decision to add on and modernize, or build new? You are not alone; most education institutions have faced this decision, as well as whether to demolish, abandon or sell a facility.

As education programs change, older structures become less adaptable to support the curriculum. Older buildings typically are void of large- and small-group learning spaces, flexible teaming areas, planning areas for staff, adequately sized classrooms and proper spaces for administration. Major physical hindrances can impede student learning and staff development.

But don't base the decision on this criterion alone. Some older facilities are characterized by higher test scores, more parental involvement and greater community pride. But when parents, staff, students and community members express frustrations about a facility, and students leave for newer schools in neighboring districts, it may be time to consider new construction. Excessive repair needs, high energy consumption and operating costs, thermal discomfort and the inability to physically support the education program are evidence that a building no longer provides a good environment for learning.

Start with a long-range plan

How does an institution begin deciding whether to renovate or build new? Look at the "big picture" and develop a campus- or districtwide master plan. Begin in-house discussions with administrators, staff, school board, parents and community groups. A facilities-planning specialist can evaluate building conditions and educational adequacy, and conduct dialogue with stakeholders. Form a facilities task force of parents, administrators, teachers, students, agencies, community members and business leaders to craft a facilities master plan.

A long-range master plan includes assessments of deferred maintenance, educational adequacy, life-cycle comparisons, construction costs (short- and long-term), parity and equity, mandates and code compliance. The assessments take into account the institution's teaching mission and educational philosophy. Master planning helps to measure a building's useful life, identify needed improvements and map out its future as it relates to enrollment demographics and educational adequacy. The process for decisionmaking is more all-encompassing than setting a "percentage threshold" comparison to replacement cost.

A master plan becomes an effective tool in determining whether to add on and modernize, or to build new. Look at the following areas to help arrive at a decision:

Factors to consider

Goals and objectives. Confirm vision/goals/philosophy outcomes, technology needs, flexibility/expansion expectations, district identity and the community interaction process.

Facilities assessment. Evaluate building deterioration, deferred maintenance, capital-renewal issues, mandated health and safety upgrades, facility obsolescence, physical-plant condition, site, structure, envelope, mechanical, electrical, codes and accessibility.

Educational-adequacy assessment. Determine quality of space, function, expansion needs, aesthetics, safety and security, site size and circulation, square footage, grade-level configuration, instructional aids, program support, flexibility, capacity, space utilization, core facilities, seating efficiency, state education mandates and re-purposing opportunities.

Operational assessment. Develop and assess project costs, life-cycle costs, replacement analysis, energy efficiency, administrative and transportation efficiencies, demographics and maintenance measures.

Community assessment. Investigate historical significance, political aspects, new and existing site analyses, board preference, effect on property values and community opinion.

Environmental assessment. Compare the sustainability impact of maintaining an existing facility with new construction.

Implementation assessment. Determine the effect of maintaining school operations during construction, phasing and sequencing considerations, time, and the effect that different building solutions will have on learning.

Addressing all planning components provides a thorough process for making decisions. When evaluating whether to modernize or build new, education institutions should rank their priorities and consider how each option will:

Enhance student learning.

Realize short- and long-term cost savings.

Save construction time.

Avoid disruption of curriculum and learning.

Affect the process of purchasing a new site.

Extend the building's useful life.

Best manage project scope and budget through phasing opportunities.

Minimize any breach of safety and security if construction takes place while school is in session.

Enhance the area's historical character.

Provide higher-quality finishes for long-term value.

Address neighborhood values.

Achieve sustainability credits with products, systems and less construction waste.

Maximize operational costs based on student capacity.

Enhance program function with fewer building constraints.

Define cost certainty with fewer unforeseen conditions.

Manage design and construction fees because of risk and other issues.

Provide positive design solutions with fewer building constraints.

Maximize energy-efficient construction.

Address educational state guidelines standards.

Address safety and security more effectively in design.

Maximize funds for instructional technology and infrastructure routing.

Whether building new or adding on and modernizing, it is essential to properly maintain school facilities. Education institutions must keep facilities in excellent operating condition. A school that is well-maintained extends its useful life, reflects the institution's leadership, enhances student achievement, instills community pride and protects long-term viability.

Revitalizing the neighborhood

After analyzing districtwide needs, Robbinsdale (Minn.) Public Schools decided to demolish Forest Elementary School in Crystal, Minn., and build a new facility over the existing building footprint. No land was available for a new site; the existing site was in an established neighborhood, adjacent to a community park.

Because of the presence of asbestos and mold, and the need for major repairs, the district concluded it would be more cost-effective to demolish the school and build a new facility. That decision prompted the city to provide funds for a larger gym and invest in upgrading the adjacent park.

With the new building, instructional space now supported the educational program, energy-efficiency and sustainable-design strategies were used, and community pride increased. Students were relocated to an nearby school for one year until construction was complete.

The decision to build a new school was made after considering all the long-range planning factors. Success builds on success; the district is seeking more new school "replacements" with the help of federal stimulus low-interest bond funding opportunities.

Erickson, AIA/NCARB/REFP, is president of ATS&R Architects/Engineers/Planners, Minneapolis, a firm specializing in school facilities planning, design and construction. He can be reached at [email protected] .

Notable

29
Percentage of school districts completing some form of construction project in 2008.

57
Percentage of colleges and universities completing some form of construction project in 2008.

Source: AS&U' s 35th Annual Official Education Construction Report, May 2009

Related Stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you facing the decision to add on and modernize, or build new? You are not alone; most education institutions have faced this decision, as well as whether to demolish, abandon or sell a facility. As education programs change, older structures become less adaptable to support the curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School construction across the country has drastically slowed, yet the need for modernized facilities remains and continues to grow. School districts may soon face a dilemma, scrambling to make up for lost time as the economy rebounds. While school boards, administrators and facility managers cannot predict the pace of the economic recovery, now is the time for the all-important process of planning for their schools' future.

The design of a new or renovated building often begins with what architects call programming. In simple terms, a building program is the written inventory of required functions and spaces, quantities, relationships and square footage. Yet as important as a building program is as the foundation for design, it should not be the true starting point.

Instead, a much more comprehensive approach is the appropriate first step. While the essential elements in any educational process are teachers willing and with the skills to teach and students equally prepared to learn, school facilities that encourage such healthy interaction become the "tipping point" of growth and success. What districts need are schools that function as a three-dimensional textbook and enhance student-centered learning, a reversal from the current paradigm that forces programs to fit buildings.

In many public school jurisdictions, the typical approach to facility planning is embodied in statutory educational policy. Districts are obligated to ensure that equitable schools are provided across economic, demographic and geographic boundaries. They initiate this process with a wish list of ideas, recognizing the important role that properly functioning facilities hold in the educational delivery system.

In contrast, the more comprehensive approach is the educational facilities plan, which begins with visioning, an overused and misunderstood term. Within the framework of Pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK-12), visioning for expansion or modernization entails:

Engaging stakeholders - board, administrators, faculty, parents and community - in a strategic discussion of needs, aspirations and goals.

Developing or refining the district's core model program, which becomes the baseline that informs individual building initiatives. A core model program lists out every space in a school (quantity, square footage, etc.) and prioritizes how critical it is to have that space in a building. The program quantifies the ideal elementary school, driven by individual school needs, and compares the model to what the school wants to have in the final building.

Formulating and communicating highly detailed benchmark information about the district and its facilities as a "plan" for the transformation, from where the district is now to where it wants to be.

The outcome is the educational facilities plan document, which incorporates stakeholder input and feedback, the district's core model program, the existing facilities condition assessment, and next steps.

The educational facilities plan employs "smart planning" where the basics are fixed and the details build upon strengths to leverage and re-energize a given school district. On a school-by-school basis, the plan benchmarks how buildings either detract from or reinforce the delivery of meaningful student instruction. In essence, the plan clearly demonstrates to the public how schools are instrumental to learning and equity, and at what quantifiable relative cost.

Comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fit School Buildings to Program Needs - Facilities Management Insights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School construction across the country has drastically slowed, yet the need for modernized facilities remains and continues to grow. School districts may soon face a dilemma, scrambling to make up for lost time as the economy rebounds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 2005

Although federal legislation has focused attention on upgrading curricula, teacher qualifications and testing standards, school districts continue to fall behind on modernizing schools. A National Education Association study in 2000 estimated the cost to repair and modernize America's schools was more than $300 billion. Many school districts are hard-pressed to fund needed upgrades, so they postpone major changes as long as possible. However, rapid changes in technology, new government mandated programs and unsafe conditions are making delay increasingly detrimental.

Three factors generally trigger a decision to take a serious look at an aging school: health and safety deficiencies, outdated or poorly operating building systems, and program changes.

Before a school district embarks on a major renovation project, it must determine whether it is better to replace the existing facility with a new school. Maine mandates such a study before it allocates monies. Some states also are beginning to offer financial incentives for reusing older buildings that are salvageable. While sometimes the cost of replacing outdated systems, upgrading life and safety deficiencies, and accommodating program expansions within existing K-12 schools far exceeds the cost of building a new facility, there may be good reasons for to renovate an older building rather than build a new one.

Question of character

Generally, schools built in the 1950s or earlier have impressive architectural character and often are fixtures in their neighborhoods. They are structurally sound and can accommodate new systems. In addition, there is often strong sentiment to keep them in some form.

Newer schools built in the 1960s and '70s generally lack architectural character, are not energy-efficient and are constructed of cheaper materials. These get torn down more often or become hand-me-down conversions from high schools to junior highs or from junior highs to elementary schools.

For schools built in the 1980s, the dilemma is not so much whether to replace or renovate but how to add to the structure in an economical and aesthetically pleasing manner.

Another important reason why older buildings are renovated is because there is no new land available to move the school or the available land is prohibitively expensive.

A final factor is whether a renovation can be undertaken while a school is in use. If the goal is to continue to occupy the building, developing a phased construction schedule, which separates construction from occupied areas, is critical.

It is impossible to generalize. Community needs and sentiment, facility deficiencies and economics all play roles. Renovating can simply be the right thing to do, make the most economical sense or provide a school district with the right space given available funds. One thing is certain: Renovating older schools is challenging.

Health and safety upgrades

The news is rife with stories about unsafe and unhealthy schools that are unexpectedly closed because of mold contamination, indoor air quality problems or other unsafe conditions. Safety and health problems leave little room for procrastination. The immediate problem can be diagnosed and fixed, but the situation triggers a serious review of all systems.

A major cause of many indoor air quality problems relates to poorly ventilated spaces. Older schools often were designed without ventilation systems; with the exception of some unit ventilators, open windows served that function. Even the ventilation provided in more recent schools does not always meet codes for outdoor air.

Other health- and safety-related issues that can trigger major upgrades include electrical systems that are inadequate and unsafe, lack of sprinkler systems, asbestos in flooring and pipe insulation, inadequate fire alarm and emergency systems, poorly designed access measures to meet ADA requirements, and inadequate or nonexistent security systems.

Often, the cost of bringing an older school building up to present-day safety, health and access codes can be considerable, adding 10 to 20 percent or more to a budget. Even so, if the basic structure of a building is sound and has not been substantially modified, renovating the building and replacing systems may very well turn out to be the more economical solution.

If updating spaces to accommodate newer or different uses results in significant reconfiguration of walls, however, then the cost may increase dramatically. Again, the type of construction and the materials used will also affect the cost of a renovation. Load-bearing concrete or masonry walls will be more costly to modify than walls of stud construction. Removing load-bearing walls to reconfigure program space may now involve reinforcing the structure, adding columns and beams, and underpinning foundations, which add significant cost.

System upgrades

Most mechanical systems with regular maintenance have an average life of 20 to 30 years. Upgrading them is a prudent but expensive step. However, upgraded systems can provide economic benefits. Today's mechanical systems come with sophisticated controls, are more dependable and are highly energy-efficient. Individual spaces can be controlled with sensors that can lower temperatures and ventilation rates when a room is unoccupied. The impact of the sun can be modeled and a control system designed to accommodate the increased or decreased amount of solar heat.

Design guidelines such as ASHRAE 90.1 provide energy guidelines that can be used as a minimum benchmark for upgrading or replacing mechanical systems.

Efficient, modular boilers can be used, minimizing stand-by losses. Radiant floor heating systems operate at temperatures between 90 and 115 degrees and not the 180 to 190 degrees required in more traditional systems. In areas where air conditioning is required, today's cooling systems run on 0.60 to 0.80 kw per ton of cooling, versus older systems that require 1.0 to 2.0 kw per ton of cooling. The energy and operational cost savings in newer HVAC systems can be considerable and result in a 5- to 10-year payback. Some states have established energy guidelines for schools and offer financial incentives to schools using highly efficient systems.

Electrical systems

Electrical systems designed two decades ago are inadequate for today's technology. Older classrooms often have extension cords and a variety of other cables snaking around the sides of the room and up and down walls to accommodate an abundance of projectors, computers and other teaching technology. Many teaching spaces now include a computer for the teacher, two or more computer workstations for student use, television monitors, videocassette and DVD players, video projectors and enhanced sound systems. All of these devices require more power and more cable. The use of wireless technology does eliminate some of the visible wiring, but it does not completely eliminate the significant increase in the electrical needs of a modern school.

New high-efficiency lamps, multiple lighting levels, direct and indirect lighting, occupancy sensors and light monitoring sensors, and other devices can provide greater control and improved comfort in the classroom. Many older schools still use T-12 fluorescent lamps. In modern schools, it is more common to use the energy-efficient T-8 and T-5 lamps. This change alone in a large school can save considerable amounts in operating costs. For quality of light, the best fixtures are direct/indirect fixtures. These throw light on the ceiling as well as on task surfaces and the illumination is uniform and without glare.

Recent studies have shown that adequate lighting and, in particular, daylight can increase student achievement. Windows in older buildings that were boarded up in the '70s in the name of energy efficiency took what used to be bright, naturally lit, albeit drafty, classrooms and reduced them to dark caves with no change in the electric lighting. Providing adequate windows that are energy-efficient and help reduce reliance on electric light may improve academics while reducing costs.

Once a building is slated for renovation and the structure is fully evaluated, building envelope issues inevitably arise, such as an inadequate roof structure and leaky windows. Reroofing an older building may require upgrading the structure because of changes in codes. For example, snow loading codes have dramatically tightened.

Older windows usually are single pane and don't function properly. Schools of the '60s and '70s may have used a curtainwall system that is not energy efficient.

Program upgrades

Over the last four decades, state and federally mandated programs, usually unfunded or under-funded, have become a significant challenge for schools. Schools are hard-pressed to find spaces for many of these programs. Closets become meeting rooms; classrooms get divided; hallway dead ends are partitioned.

In addition, changing teaching methods and educational practices require radically different types and sizes of teaching spaces. An example is common spaces where several classes of students can meet at the same time to work together, create large projects or participate in interdisciplinary learning. This modern curriculum will require much greater access to infrastructure, such as power, data, plumbing and mechanical systems, than is available in older buildings. Schools have also become centers of community activities, which require specialized spaces as well.

Aesthetic gains

While aesthetics alone rarely trigger a major renovation, appearance is an added benefit and major focus once design begins. Skeptics may question the viability of turning a tired school into a bright, attractive environment that enhances learning during the abandon-or-renovate analysis. Invariably, the final product will dispel any lingering doubt. Teachers, students and administrators have the opportunity to create environments, in conjunction with the architect and interior designer, that enhance and support their educational philosophy.

Cost and sensitivity to the original design have a lot to do with how a renovation turns out. When it comes to adding on to an older building, it can be relatively easy to match the materials and detailing of the original depending on the style. On much older buildings, this may not be so easy or cost-effective.

Assessments are key

Good school facility executives are generally up to speed on what needs to be upgraded, even before an architect or engineer is hired. They are looking for confirmation as well as the expertise that an architect has to offer. If a school does not have a facility executive or the expertise to know what needs to be upgraded, then the school may look to an architect or engineer to do the evaluation and analysis, and present that information to the school board or building committee. A good analysis should be comprehensive and look at all aspects of a building, documenting the condition of each component, estimating the life expectancy, and determining the cost of replacement or upgrade.

Maine requires every school department or district to do a building assessment on every building and to analyze all of the above items. These assessments must include energy use and maintenance costs. Then these items are compared with new buildings to evaluate how well the building is performing. Schools cannot receive funding from the state's renovation fund without first doing the assessment. The proposed upgrades need to be prioritized and budgeted. Maine considers life safety issues to be a top priority, building system upgrades as a second priority and new or renovated program space as a third priority.

Surprises and contingencies

With any renovation, there will be surprises. Few schools have copies of original drawings. Even if drawings do exist, past renovations or additions may not be documented. Some schools do renovations and additions themselves, and there is no documentation. Even the best set of documents, however, may not provide every answer.

There will always be hidden elements that no one can predict, such as deteriorating structural elements and mold. Asbestos removal, lead paint and other hazardous building products also must be removed.

Not knowing how a building was constructed, what is above the ceiling or behind the walls, or what the foundation is really like can make it difficult to assess renovation costs. That's what contingencies are for.

Contingency plans for renovations should include flexible approaches to accommodate surprises. For example, don't demolish the existing kitchen until the new kitchen is up and running, and keep temporary classrooms on site in the event that classroom space is needed. In addition to the planning to accommodate schedule changes, set aside money for unforeseen conditions. Existing utilities and foundations may not be exactly where expected nor properly dimensioned on old drawings. This often leads to on-site adjustments.

Benefits

There are significant benefits to renovating older schools. The older the school, the more it is viewed with considerable sentiment, particularly if it occupies a prominent location in a community. Keeping these schools enhances a community's traditions and history. A second benefit is an economic one. New building systems will reduce maintenance and operational costs, as well as provide an environment as good as any found in a new school. A final benefit is related to health and safety. Older schools, not slated for abandonment, need to provide safe and healthy environments for students and teachers.

An older school can be transformed into a vibrant, lively, efficient place of learning. Projects all over the country have proven that.

Jeffrey Larimer, AIA, is an associate, and Clif Greim, PE, is a principal with Harriman Associates in Auburn, Maine.

One school's choice: Renovation and expansion provide more room on a prime site

A central location and sentiment won out when the town of Scarborough, Maine, addressed solutions to its severely overcrowded high school. Rather than starting with a clean slate, the town chose to expand and renovate the existing facility. Once this decision was made, the challenge for the architect, construction manager and the school administration was how to pull off the multiyear project safely with minimal disruption to teachers and students.

The town never seriously considered a new school on a new site. The existing 135,000-square-foot high school was part of a centralized campus of town facilities that included several schools, town offices, the town library and a winter skating pond. In addition, there was enough sentimental and financial equity in the existing facilities to warrant the upgrade and expansion.

The new 300,000-square-foot school will relieve severe overcrowding that had students eating lunch in the auditorium and taking classes in undersized classrooms, trailers and rooms once used for storage. In addition, many of the core facilities, such as a cafeteria, kitchen and gymnasium, which were undersized and had outdated building systems, will be larger.

Build new or not? State steps in to force the analysis

Maine requires schools to analyze renovation and replacement to evaluate whether it is more economical or reasonable to renovate an older school rather than abandon or demolish it.

This analysis must be performed on any new school project that includes abandoning or demolishing an existing school. The cost of renovating an older school to bring it up to code may exceed the cost of building new.

A lot of this is driven by the State Planning Office's involvement in trying to avoid sprawl by reusing existing schools that are typically located in an established neighborhood setting as opposed to buying undeveloped land that doesn't have the needed infrastructure, arrangements for bus transportation and other issues established locations offer. Schools from the '60s and '70s tend to be on larger parcels of land to begin with and are usually easier to renovate or add on to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Construction vs. Renovation for Older School Facilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March 2005 Although federal legislation has focused attention on upgrading curricula, teacher qualifications and testing standards, school districts continue to fall behind on modernizing schools. A National Education Association study in 2000 estimated the cost to repair and modernize America's schools was more than $300 billion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1998, the National Institute of Building Sciences (the Institute) created the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) to provide timely, comprehensive information on designing, building, and maintaining safe, healthy, high-performing schools. In its 17 years of existence, NCEF grew to be a collection of more than 23,000 resources on facilities supporting early childhood and K-12 to higher education, and at its peak was used by 1.5 million visitors a year.

Despite its "fallow" years of 2012 - 2015 due to funding, NCEF's popularity has continued among its users. This popularity, coupled with increasingly urgent concerns that directly affect the educational built environment-energy use, safety and security, health in public buildings-compelled the Institute to revamp and reestablish the NCEF website as a vital place where all invested in the educational environment can share and retrieve the best information possible. Read more

Resource Lists

Drawn from NCEF's vast database of 19,000 records, subject-specific resource lists provide a quick path to 167 school facilities topics. Each continuously updated list includes descriptions of books, studies, reports, and journal articles, with links to online publications and related websites.

Here are some of the most popular topics:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1998, the National Institute of Building Sciences (the Institute) created the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) to provide timely, comprehensive information on designing, building, and maintaining safe, healthy, high-performing schools.