ISSU

E 40

JUN

E 200

0

PEBEXCHANGETHE JOURNAL OF THE OECD PROGRAMME ON EDUCATIONAL BUILDING

6 New York's School for the Physical City: Architectural Design Concerns

8 The Library of the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

11 The Changing Infrastructure of Tertiary Education – FEATURE

22 Debate: Wired Versus Wireless

25 Book Review

TheChangingInfrastructureof Tertiary Education

2

PEB AND OECD ACTIVITIES

The OECD Programme on Educational Building (PEB)The Programme on Educational Building (PEB) operates within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).PEB promotes 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.

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

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

FINANCING CAPITAL ANDRECURRENT EXPENDITURE

In most countries capital allocations for schools are stillrelated primarily to actual or forecast pupil numbersand do not reflect internal migration, educational orsocial need or changing attitudes to lifelong learning.Moreover notwithstanding efforts by the OECD Pro-gramme on Educational Building (PEB) in the past, littleis done to take account of life-cycle costs by relatingrecurrent to capital expenditure, or of value for money.To open up discussion about innovative approaches tofunding educational facilities, PEB organised an inter-national seminar on “Financing Capital and RecurrentExpenditure on Educational Facilities” in co-operationthe Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture in Toledoin February 2000. Decentralisation was a strong sub-theme to the discussions given the Spanish context inwhich responsibility for education has recently beentransferred to the Autonomous Regions.

Papers from eight countries other than Spain werepresented, including from France which decentralisedresponsibility for facilities in 1986, and where questionsare now being asked about how the link between infra-structure and educational content is maintained; fromMexico which is planning a major decentralisation; fromNew Zealand which was one of the first countries togive autonomy to schools; and from Canada (Quebec)where the Ministry of Education deals with a large numberof school boards and is reviewing its funding procedures.

Participants discussed ways to tailor provision to localneeds in a centralised system; and its mirror, how to

maintain equity in a more decentralised system. Anotherkey theme was how – under whatever arrangements – toensure value for money and better accountability for theuse of public funds. There was concern from several coun-tries about internal migration patterns which have createda situation in which many schools in rural areas arehalf empty, while urban areas are overcrowded. Morebroadly, discussion sought to identify to what extent fund-ing systems and administrative arrangements are respon-sive to educational and societal change. The question ofcapacity and willingness to assess and evaluate theeffectiveness of the systems adopted, which is becomingan increasingly frequent one, was raised. The seminarincreased awareness of the notion of risk managementand the need to provide flexibility in design.

NEW PEB-EIB PUBLICATION

The appraisal of the substantial investments which aremade in educational facilities remains a largelyunexplored field of research. Is it possible to developreliable and effective criteria for evaluation, given thewide range of parameters from planning and cost-effectiveness of buildings to their impact on the per-formance of the educational system as a whole? Thisquestion, which is facing every modern educationalsystem, is of concern to investors and funding bodies,as well as those who are responsible for planning,managing and designing educational facilities.

An international conference on the evaluation ofinvestment in educational facilities was organised byPEB in collaboration with the Projects Directorate ofthe European Investment Bank (EIB) in Luxembourg

3

in November 1998. The Appraisal of Investments inEducational Facilities, published in February, is acompilation of the papers presented by internationalexperts and the conclusions drawn from discussion.A French version will be available shortly.

SCHOOLING FOR TOMORROW

The OECD Centre for Educational Research andInnovation (CERI) and the Netherlands Ministry ofEducation, Culture and Science are planning a majorconference 1-3 November 2000 as part of the CERISchooling for Tomorrow programme. Its aim is toforward understanding of how different policies andinnovative initiatives can address the challengesconfronting schools in the future, in the light of differentscenarios of education over the next 20 years.Specifically, the conference aims to identify how newforms of dialogue and partnership between the differentplayers – including policy-makers, practitioners, experts,the private sector and parents/communities – can bepromoted at the core of educational change.

The conference, to be held in Rotterdam, Netherlands,will include workshops at local innovative sites in thecity that will bring together Dutch and non-Dutchexperiences. These will likely be organised around anumber of broad themes such as: school/communityinitiatives, with particular reference to areas ofdisadvantage; non-formal learning and the wholechild; ICT-based initiatives; innovations in theorganisation of schools, teaching and learning. In theconcluding sessions, it is envisaged that the lessonsabout learning innovation, community action andpolicy coherence will be distilled to see how to buildthe schools of the future.

For more information, please contact: Mariko Kuroiwa,OECD/CERI, fax: 331 45 24 90 98,e-mail: mariko.kuroiwa@oecd.org

COMPENDIUM OFEXEMPLARY FACILITIES

The jury, after meeting twice, has selected submissionsfor publication in the PEB 2nd Compendium ofExemplary Educational Facilities. Twenty countriessubmitted newly built or renovated facilitiesrepresenting the various themes of PEB work such assafety, the environment, lifelong learning and infor-mation technology. The schools and universities whichbest exemplify quality will appear in the book andCD-ROM to be published by PEB. Organisations orcompanies interested in sponsoring this widely-readand influential publication are invited to contactRichard Yelland at the PEB Secretariat.

ICT AND THE QUALITY OFLEARNING

Information and communication technology (ICT) ispoised to have a profound effect on education andlifelong learning. The scale of this development isremarkable,1 with OECD countries investing someUSD 16 billion annually (although this is still not morethan 1 to 2% of total educational spending). The rate ofchange is sometimes dramatic, as illustrated by theincrease in Internet access in 1997-1998, for Irishprimary schools from 14 to 95%, and for Portuguesesecondary schools from 30 to 100%.

Much is claimed (and often justifiably so) for the powerof ICT to transform the learning experience, but softwareand hardware are not all. It is said that high socio-economic status schools tend to use ICT for advancedapplications and thinking, whereas other schools mayuse it for basic skills (or, worse still, for diversionaryactivities such as computer games). This is but one ex-ample of what has become known as the digital divide,whereby rather than making for a more equitable society,ICT can aggravate the divisions which already exist.

Even where schools are well-resourced with ICT whichis wisely used, home access remains a critical variable.How far then can the education system play acompensatory role? The implication may be that accessto the ICT facilities in schools should be made widelyavailable out of normal hours, both for such disadvan-taged students and for adult members of the commu-nity. This would be to identify school more closely withlifelong learning and to exploit the extraordinary oppor-tunities which ICT offers to meet the education andtraining needs of all within society. Perhaps new modelsof teaching and learning will emerge, involving greaterinteraction with the community.

Later in 2000 there will be a report on an InternationalRoundtable held in Philadelphia in December 1999, onthe various aspects of the digital divide.2 The CERI projectICT and the Quality of Learning will report by the end of2001, addressing the policy issues relating to the supplyand effective educational use of ICT. Through these reportsand in other ways the project will identify matters ofconcern to those who plan school and communityeducational resources. Meanwhile the CERI Web siteprovides fuller information: http://bert.eds.udel.edu/oecd

1. The statistics here are drawn from OECD (1999), Education PolicyAnalysis, Paris.

2. International Roundtable on “The Lifelong Learning and NewTechnologies Gap: Reaching the Disadvantaged”, jointly organisedby OECD/CERI and the National Center on Adult Literacy (NCAL),University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 8-10 December 1999.

……………………………………………………………………………

4

NEWS

FRANCE DEFINESUNIVERSITY PLAN

The French Ministry for Education, Research andTechnology has layed out new spending plans foruniversity improvements. The central governmenthas committed FRF 18.3 billion towards its Univer-sity of the Third Millennium (U3M) plan and expectsthat sum to be matched as part of a state-regionalcontract for 2000-2006. Another FRF 2 billion forthe U3M plan were already included in the 1998/99 budget.

One fourth of the funds will be devoted to studentlife with investments in cultural facilities and sportsequipment to be shared with the local community,food services, housing and libraries. Priority will alsobe given to increasing co-operation between universityresearch programmes as well as with the private sector.Facilities will be built to ensure a better spread ofuniversity research across the country.

Funding will also cover renovation of facilities oradditions to universities that did not benefit from thegovernment’s University 2000 plan carried out in the1990s; that plan left France with a university within150 kilometres of any point in the country. The fourthobjective of the U3M plan is to increase internationalexchange; in addition to building and renovatinghousing for foreign students, each major universitycity will have a cultural house/resource centre devotedto a different country.

An additional FRF 7.4 billion will be spent on otheruniversity improvements such as asbestos removal andsecurity.

HIGHER EDUCATION INQUEBEC

The Web site operated by the Ministère del’Education du Québec (Quebec Ministry of Educa-tion), Canada, provides the following informationon school systems within the Province at http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/:

• a list of teaching establishments in the college anduniversity systems, and links to their Web sites;

• the Ministry’s plan of action with regard to newinformation technologies;

• funding regulations applicable to establishments;

• permit procedures for construction projects andbuilding standards applicable to establishments(see Régime budgétaire et financier des Cégeps).

Legislation and regulations for which responsibilitylies with the Ministère de l’Education can be found athttp://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/m_legislat.htm

IMPROVING THE QUALITYOF SCHOOL GROUNDS INFINLAND: A NATION–WIDECOMPETITION

Finnish school grounds are too often dull, uninspiringplaces. There are several reasons for this. State aidsupporting school building includes no earmarkedshare for school grounds, so municipalities strugglingwith tight building budgets usually spend all the aidon the school building itself and no money is left forequipping the school grounds. The school yard hasoften been seen merely as a place for recreation duringclass breaks, and the equipment usually servesuniquely for outdoor sports and physical training. Inthe past, legislation and norms concentrated on thesize of sports fields and minimum areas of vegeta-tion. Today such norms no longer exist in Finland;school design and construction is open, allowing forthe creation of new kinds of school grounds.

Many schools have only yards covered with asphaltand their idea of the school yard seems based on easymaintenance. But fortunately there are also manyschools that take into consideration the needs ofchildren. School grounds offer possibilities for manykinds of activities, providing an inspiring and pleasantenvironment for recreation and learning. For thisreason the National Board of Education will organisea special School Grounds Theme Week in Septemberwhich focuses on improving the quality of schoolgrounds in Finland. The most important activity duringthis week is a nation-wide competition where schoolsand neighbouring communities are invited to partici-pate in a community effort to improve their outdoorlearning environment.

The goal of this special week is to make the whole schoolcommunity – teachers, pupils, parents and neighbours– aware of the idea of school grounds as a place forpupils’ learning satisfaction and well-being and discoverthe possibilities of their use as a tool for teaching. Duringthe School Grounds Theme Week the meaning of localspirit – genius loci – and ecology are emphasised in

5

planning, building and improving the activities of theschool grounds. Each school yard is unique; the goals,means and realisations for improvement thus have tobe based on each school’s own premises.

The week will be launched with an opening seminarin Helsinki on 11 September, open to teachers, pupils,parents, designers and builders. Lectures will addressthe pedagogy, architecture, history and horticultureof school grounds. Maintenance and safety are alsoimportant issues that will be discussed.

The competition is divided into three groups: forprimary, lower secondary and upper secondaryschools. The prizes to be awarded to each level consistof equipment suited for the age group.

The schools and communities have a choice of modelsfor the work, which is done on a volunteer basis:

• creating new learning environments and spaces,e.g. open-air auditoriums, greenhouses andgardens, plant composts, small-scale constructionsfor nature observation;

• building new playgrounds and equipment;

• analysing and organising different areas of activity(e.g. traffic, play areas) to improve the safety ofthe school grounds;

• improving the atmosphere and comfort of theschool grounds with new plants, flower beds,benches and outdoor lounges;

• creating different kinds of works of art, such assculptures or mural paintings;

• simply cleaning and tidying the yards.

The competition will be judged on the basis of reportsthat schools send to the National Board of Education.Schools will describe their projects, including theplanning process, implementation and results, andprovide photographs and drawings made by thepupils.

The criteria for the evaluation of the projects are:

• reaching the main goal of the competition, i.e.improving the quality of the school yard as alearning environment;

• active involvement of the whole school commu-nity, including local businesses;

• consideration taken of the principles of ecologyand sustainable development;

• understanding of the possibilities of the schoolgrounds, their history, individuality and spirit;

• effective and economical use of local resourcesand materials;

• campaign planning, including fundraising, designbriefing and planning of the work process;

• planning and securing future improvements andmaintenance of the school yard;

• use of publicity of the campaign to promote theproject.

The jury is made up of teachers, architects, horti-culturists, parents and sponsors. The award-winningschools will be selected before Christmas 2000, andthe best practices will be published in educationaljournals.

The school yard of a lower secondary school inMäntsälä, where the age and needs of the students havebeen taken into consideration.

The playground of a primary school in Helsinki – an uninspiring space where asphalt is the only material used.

……………………………………………………………………………

For more information, contact:Reino TapaninenChief ArchitectNational Board of EducationPO Box 380FIN-00531 HelsinkiTel.: 358 9 77477121, fax: 358 9 77477197E-mail: reino.tapaninen@oph.fi

6

PROJECTS

NEW YORK’S SCHOOLFOR THE PHYSICALCITY: ARCHITECTURALDESIGN CONCERNSA typical New York City public school has certaincharacteristics: a free-standing or semi-attached build-ing with institutional interiors located in a primarilyresidential neighbourhood, housing a large studentbody – perhaps in the area of 2 000 to 3 000 studentsat the high school level; presumably designed byschool officials and architects with little, if any, inputfrom the teachers, administrators and students.

The School for the Physical City possesses none ofthese characteristics. It was built in an office buildingin the central business district of Manhattan for500 students, in grades 7 through 12, who use thecity’s infrastructure as a vehicle for studying traditionalacademic disciplines. It is one of the new, small themeschools inaugurated in 1993/94 by the New York City(NYC) Board of Education with support from four non-profit organisations, initiated under the New VisionsSchool Programme by the federal government.

The Board of Education leased the space from acommercial real estate developer on a ready-for-occupancy basis. According to Carmi Bee, FAIA,Principal-in-Charge of the architectural firm RKT&B,“The project called upon RKT&B’s experience in twoareas: the planning and design of educational facilitiesand the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. The keychallenge was to place a 1990s experimental schoolwithin the envelope of a 1920s office building.” Theprocess involved the close collaboration of the NYCBoard of Education, the NYC Fund for Public Educa-tion, the school administrators and teachers, thesponsors – including The Cooper Union and OutwardBound USA – and the architect.

The school occupies approximately 5 500 square metreson the first five floors of the building at 325 Park AvenueSouth. The commercial location reinforces a growingtrend in city planning philosophies which leans towardthe creation of mixed-use facilities and districts. It is animportant addition to a number of historically signifi-cant spaces and buildings in the area, among whichare Madison Square Park, the New York State AppellateCourt building, the Metropolitan Life building and theSixty-ninth Regiment Armoury on Lexington Avenue.Close to public transportation, it is easily accessible forstudents from all parts of the city. Its central location

facilitates the use of the city’s resources as a learninglaboratory. The school uses the city as an annex forlearning about structures and building systems; the1993/94 curriculum included a course entitled“Watering the Big Apple,” which focused on the city’spublic works – bridges, tunnels, parks and watersystems.

The School for the Physical City was conceived as anenvironment in which students can observe thevarious components that make up a building. Theinterior design includes elements that relate directlyto the theme of the school, using vibrant colours thatrelate to school functions. Other ideas guiding thedesign concern orientation within the building,contextual relationships and the use of symbolicelements that reflect the urban infrastructure. To giveform to these ideas, elements of the building structure– columns, pipes and ducts – are left exposed in themajority of the spaces. Building columns are paintedin a vibrant green to call attention to their locationsfrom floor to floor, pipes are painted blue and ductsare painted in a variety of colours. Small viewingpanels allow students to see into spaces containingheating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment.

The School for the Physical City is organised vertically,with functions spread over five floors. The plan isarranged so that the largest common spaces, includ-ing the multipurpose rooms, administrative offices andcafeteria, are located on the two lower floors. Theupper three floors contain classrooms, laboratories,an audio-visual centre, a workshop and an art room.

One of the main challenges of the design was to findways in which to orient students as they move throughthe five floors. This was achieved through a series of

Exposed pipes and ducts, as in this workshop, increase studentawareness of building design.

7

design elements. In the main lobby, two lines inscribedon the floor at a right angle announce a more literalidea of orientation: the east-west, north-south axes. Athin red line points toward true north, veering off atan angle of 29 degrees from the city’s street grid. Atthe centre of this symbolic compass is a real manholecover, which indicates grade (or ground level) andserves as a sign of the school’s theme.

The compass is repeated throughout the building, atpoints where the hallways change direction. The useof the compass also recognises the contribution madeto this venture by Outward Bound USA, whoseobjective is to help students find their way in lifethrough expeditionary-learning principles and theexploration of ideas.

The security station in the lobby, constructed ofstructural-steel elements, is conceived as a miniaturebuilding frame. This element reflects a major structuralmaterial used in buildings and recalls the contributionof the inventor Peter Cooper who manufactured thefirst metal structural beams for buildings and foundedThe Cooper Union, one of the school’s sponsors.

Located on each floor, in proximity to the main stairand the elevator, is another form of orientation map:the architectural plan, or working drawing, for thatfloor. The drawing not only assists in finding one’sway, but also serves as a lesson in how to relate anabstract, two-dimensional representation to an actual,three dimensional space. Next to each map are verticalheight indicators marking how many feet and metersa particular floor is above street level.

Doors and room signs are colour-coded according tofunction. A tile doormat in a corresponding colour ateach room’s entrance serves as a symbolic thresholdto the space.

Among the school’s major design elements is atelecommunications system made possible through agrant from a major corporation and designed withthe assistance of the sponsors and noted educationalinstitutions. The system is connected to the Internetand World Wide Web, and provides internal e-mailas well as school-wide and home-to-school commu-nication capabilities.

For further information, contact:Luanne KonopkoRothzeid Kaiserman Thomson & Bee150 West 22 StreetNew York, NY 10011, USATel.: 1 212 807 9500Fax: 1 212 627 2409E-mail: lkonopko@rktb.com

Common areasare situated on thelower floors foreasy accessibility.

A giant ruler on each floorindicates the distanceabove street level.

Compass directions arepainted throughout

the building

8

BELGIUM, THE LIBRARYOF THE ULB: AFTER FIVEYEARS IN USEProject and architecture

The project to build a new library at the UniversitéLibre de Bruxelles (ULB) arose because library resourcesand services had become scattered across the campus,due to a lack of space in the original library building.The facilities and services needed to be adapted to theevolution of library management and to the needs of agrowing number of users. Building a new library wasalso motivated by the university’s educational objectiveto increase student autonomy and to stimulate criticalthinking and individual research. The project took shapein the early nineties, thanks to a grant from the publicauthorities.

Centralising the humanities resources and integratingthe scattered libraries into a single building wasconsidered the most effective solution in terms ofhuman and material investments. According to normsprovided by the Atkinson Report of the UniversityGrant Committee, the number of seats required wasestimated at 1 780 (i.e. 1:7 students); and with asurface area per student of 1.65 m2, the total librarysurface required was 13 000 m2. It was determinedthat a major extension to the existing building wouldprovide a 26% saving in capital over the cost of build-ing a new library from scratch. However the groundsurface available for an extension was greatly limited.

An extension was designed in the shape of an isoscelestriangle; a symbol of critical thinking and elevation,it was particularly adapted for a library, and it perfectlyfit the site. The resulting volume is open, welcoming

and light. Its original form contributes to the curiositythat a library should arouse.

The new nine-floor library building was inauguratedin September 1994. The entrance leads directly to afloor underground (Level 2), the welcome area. Bybuilding underground, it was possible to extend thesurface area in order to include the many servicesneeded for users: a welcome desk, a spacious readingroom with a double-storey ceiling and high windowsletting in light, a circulation desk, a multimedia area,a 100-seat auditorium equipped with up-to-dateprojection equipment, an inter-library loan service,etc. A passage leads to the old building which housesa periodicals collection and specialised “seminarrooms”, as well as the general library managementcentre (administration, purchase department, logisticsand computer centre). Further underground, Level 1of the new building houses the book reserve devotedto document conservation and equipped with anautomatic document transport system, for shippingbooks throughout the reserve and to any floor. Theupper levels of the library, which provide direct accessto bookshelves, are divided thematically: Level 3 isdevoted to reference books and bibliographical CD-ROMs, whereas Levels 4 to 9 are each devoted todifferent areas of the humanities.

On each triangular level, the user finds the same func-tional areas in the same place. An information deskand a librarians’ office are located near the elevatorsand a photocopier is in the acute angle. The book-shelves are in the reading room in the centre of eachfloor. Seminar rooms and working rooms are locatedalong each side of the right angle of the building.Seminar rooms are small classrooms containingreference books in a specialised subject, whereresearch workshops can take place. Working roomshave individual workstations for researchers; theserooms have proven functional and flexible in adaptingto new needs. On Level 5, for instance, the workingroom has been turned into the Electronic EconomicsLibrary, a specific research area for final year studentsand researchers in economics. The room is equippedwith eight PCs providing access to selected electronicinformation resources; it is managed by a universitygraduate, in collaboration with the Faculty ofEconomics. On Level 6, the working room has beendevoted in part to computer-assisted languagelearning; this area is accessible only to languagestudents and is managed by an assistant from thelanguage department.

Infrastructure and resources

In the new library, 1 700 seats and 102 workstationsare available to users. Workstations provide access to

Serg

e B

riso

n

Arc

hive

s U

LB

9

the library Web site which has practical informationabout the library, a description of the resources available,a thematic search tool and links to the library catalogue,to 18 networked CD-ROMs, to electronic journals andto selected resources available on the Internet (e.g.library catalogues in Belgium and other countries).

The UNICORN library management system, installedin 1997, allowed the reorganisation of cataloguingand simplified the purchasing procedure. The systemalso allows students to renew book loans themselves.

More than 400 000 volumes of the humanities libraryare listed in the catalogue, 45% of which are avail-able on the shelves, in addition to the current-yearissues of 2 500 journals. However, the catalogueincludes only 80% of the whole library collection.The remaining 20%, stored in the reserve, still needsto be included, but this task requires more humanand financial resources than the operating budgetallocated to the library allows.

Usage

Each level of the library, approximately 1 300 m2,is managed by two or three librarians. In additionto collection management, they ensure that equip-ment (photocopiers, workstations, elevators, etc.)remains in working order, calling upon the techni-cal service when necessary. They also ensure, as faras possible, that security regulations and library rulesare respected. Despite the librarians’ repeatedefforts, mobile phones have become a real nuisanceand it is sometimes difficult to maintain an accept-ably low noise level. The problem of noise isincreased by the traffic of people attending coursesgiven in the library.

Due to the continuing growth and diversity of electronicresources, user training has become an importantmission of the library. Training consists of a visit of thelibrary, an introduction to the collection organisationand a demonstration of the on-line catalogue and otherelectronic information resources. Originally the trainingsessions were general and intended for students of anysubject. They have now been adapted to specificcategories of users. Sessions are organised in collabo-ration with teachers from the different faculties, andeach focuses on well-targeted resources.

The new library is a place where all ULB studentscome to work and study, not only students of thehumanities. The opening hours vary according toneeds: when class is in session, the library is open until8 p.m.; during the period prior to exams, the openinghours are extended until 10 p.m.; a restricted scheduleis applied during university holidays.

An automatic access barrier counts the number ofentries. During the year 1998/99, there was an averageof 4 000 entries per day. However this number canexceed 7 000 entries a day during the busiest months:December, March, April and May. These monthscorrespond to the two periods of the year whenstudents are preparing for exams (which take place inJanuary and in June). These figures emphasise animportant function of the library as a place for study.However it is in October and November, and fromFebruary to April, that the number of books borrowedmonthly is at its highest. The average number of loansduring these months may reach a 61% increase: in1998/99, more than 14 000 books were checked outduring the busiest month! It can reasonably be inferredthat students are intensively using the librarydocumentation during these months to preparereports, final year theses or dissertations, before theystart preparing for exams.

Difficulties encountered

During periods of intensive use, it is difficult to keep thelibrary clean and quiet. The situation worsens duringthe late opening hours when library staff is reduced.Additional support from the university securitydepartment is required to handle discipline problems.

Mar

c D

etiff

e

10

The multiplicity of areas open to the public on eachlevel further contributes to security problems, as thelibrary staff cannot be present in all the areas. This surfacefragmentation and the free access to books can bedirectly linked to the high number of missing books,despite the anti-theft detector installed at the exit door.It is now envisaged to install an access control devicethat would restrict library access to registered members.This is intended as a deterrent measure, since there isno proof that books are stolen by external people.

Finally, computer access to information resources hadto be reorganised. Providing access to the Internet onall the workstations limited access to the librarycatalogue, as users tended to monopolise theworkstations to surf the Internet or use their e-mail.Therefore, Internet access has been removed from halfof the workstations. Another measure was taken torestrict Internet access to university students andmembers only, by requiring them to enter a password.

Conclusions

The intensive use of the new ULB library exemplifiesthe diversity of the library building functions. Thelibrary cannot be restricted to simply providing accessto information; its functions include providingadequate and sufficient study areas for students aswell as individual research and work areas forresearchers and professors.

The library is also a place for teaching. First archi-tecturally, it includes seminar rooms which containreference books in specialised subjects and whereresearch workshops can take place. This functional roleof the library meets the university’s educationalobjectives by favouring personal research and criticalthinking, rather than ex cathedra teaching methods.

Secondly, by means of its staff, the library participatesin teaching activities by providing training in the useof library resources and tools. Not only must the libraryprovide access to paper and electronic resources, butit must also provide its users with the means to usethem. As electronic resources increase, it is morecrucial than ever for the library to fulfil its role asintermediary by facilitating user access to resources,and therefore developing training activities.

In addition to these fundamental functions, the librarycontributes to the organisation of scientific andcultural events. Its well-equipped projection room ishighly solicited for conferences and demonstrationswhile an exhibition area is permanently devoted tovarious book-related themes. As the library also hostsa desk of the multimedia library of the Belgian French-speaking community, it has become a dynamic,cultural place where people like to gather.

Five years after its opening, the library’s success isundeniable and this success contributes to anadditional, yet unexpected, function of the library asa model both in terms of its architecture and itsstructural organisation.

ReferencesBisbrouck, Marie-Françoise and Daniel Renoult (1993),Construire une bibliothèque universitaire. De la conceptionà la réalisation, Editions du Cercle de la librairie, (CollectionBibliothèques), Paris.

Bisbrouck, Marie-Françoise and Elmar Mittler, ed. (1997), ThePost-Modern Library, ed. Akademische Druck- u.Verlagsanstalt,Graz, Austria.

Devroey, Jean-Pierre and Christian Brouwer (1995), Biblio-thèques, Les bibliothèques de l’Université Libre de Bruxellesdepuis sa création et la Nouvelle Bibliothèque des SciencesHumaines, Bibliothèques de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles,Brussels.

Edwards, H.M. (1990), University Library Building Planning,Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey – London.

Metcalf, Keyes D. (1986), Planning Academic and ResearchLibrary Buildings, 2nd ed. / by Philip D. Leighton and DavidC. Weber, American Library Association, Chicago.

Article contributed by:Christian Brouwer and Françoise VandoorenLibraries of the Université Libre de Bruxelles50 avenue F. Roosevelt - CP180B - 1050 BrusselsE-mail: cbrouwer@ulb.ac.be, fdooren@ulb.ac.behttp://www.bib.ulb.ac.be/

Serg

e B

riso

nSe

rge

Bri

son

………………………………………………………………………

11

FEATURE

THE CHANGINGINFRASTRUCTURE OFTERTIARY EDUCATIONTechnological, economic and social changes are puttinggrowing pressures on teaching methods andprogrammes and pointing to new trends in tertiaryeducation. Is existing infrastructure flexible enough tomeet the changing demands? What new forms offacilities governance and funding are proving success-ful? What impact does the built environment andmaintenance have on student achievement? At a timewhen property management budgets are shrinking andmaintenance costs are on the rise, it is important to beable to quality and quantify performance and drawcomparisons with other institutions and other sectors.These topics were addressed at the PEB seminar entitled“The Changing Infrastructure of Tertiary Education”. Theseminar, which took place in Quebec City and Montrealin October 1999, was co-hosted by the Ministère del’Éducation du Québec and the Association of Institu-tional Property Managers (AGPI/AIPM), with theparticipation of the OECD Programme on InstitutionalManagement in Higher Education (IMHE). The PEBpublication Strategic Asset Management for TertiaryInstitutions served as a background report.

Following are summaries of a selection of presentationsand the seminar conclusions. These and other presen-tations are available in full in the Resources section ofthe PEB Web site, http://www.oecd.org/els/edu/peb/

Facilities and Educational QualityBy William A. Daigneau, Vice President, Operations andFacilities Management, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center,University of Texas, United States

Well equipped, modern buildings and facilities seemto be basic requirements for providing quality highereducation. Without the most modern, well-equippedand properly maintained building and grounds, highereducation would be unable to properly educate itsstudents or to expand the boundaries of knowledge.Few would dispute that argument. The equation issimple: Better facilities equals better education.

Not all universities or colleges can afford the bestfacilities, and some can barely take care of thebuildings and grounds they own. Do their graduatessuffer in comparison to those in the better-equippedinstitutions? Is there truly a relationship between thequality of education and the quality of the facilities

that are provided? It would be nice to answer suchquestions definitively. Yet when one looks for thestudies or research to support the argument that thebest facilities lead to the best education, there is avoid. Is it because the answer is so obvious that itdoes not warrant scientific investigation? Or is itbecause the variables that influence the questions areso complex that they are not determinable? Thispresentation seeks to shed some light on thesequestions and to stimulate future research to helpprovide better answers. It includes:

• a review of the fundamental educational processesused by higher education;

• examination of the research that is relevant to anunderstanding of how the physical environmentenhances or hinders those processes;

• discussion of what this means to facilitiesmanagement practices and how this informationmight be used to develop more directed research.

Higher education utilises specific processes by whichproperly motivated students learn. These processesconsist of four interrelated components: demonstration,discussion, experimentation and investigation. To deliverthe educational process, higher education pursuesseveral fundamental objectives. The most importantobjective is to first assemble the faculty and studentsnecessary to engage in the educational process. Thisimplies both a selection and a recruitment objective forhigher education. This means higher education mustcreate the conditions that attract both a competentfaculty and motivated, capable students.

A second objective must be to organise and managethe educational process itself. Accomplishing thisrequires organisation and the development ofmanagement processes. Facilities, equipment andadministrative systems for management of theenterprise must be available. So another key objec-tive is to garner the necessary financial resources tosupport the operation of the institution or to supportits capital requirements. To meet this objective, highereducation needs to solicit the involvement and supportof government, business and industry.

The physical environment and facilities are integralto meeting these objectives. Dating back to thebeginnings of universities and colleges, the pursuit ofknowledge and understanding has been best accom-plished by bringing both teachers and studentstogether at a single location to interact on a continualbasis. This model has persisted to this day, in varyingdegrees, with the creation of college campuses. Thecampus provides the classrooms, laboratories andlibraries that create the space to support the educa-tional process.

12

The argument for providing the best possible facili-ties generally goes like this:

1. Facilities are an essential component of theeducational enterprise. To be successful requiresthat a university have the best faculty teachingthe brightest students, with the most extensivescholarly resources and curriculum, in the mostmodern and well-equipped buildings andgrounds. Short-changing any one of theseelements diminishes the entire educationalexperience.

2. The design of a college or university’s physicalenvironment reflects it goals and values. In otherwords form follows function. If an institution valuesa high quality education, its facilities will reflectthat value. Furthermore, the quality of the facilitiesprovided represents the institution’s priorities as wellas the overall priorities of the society it serves.

3. The condition of an institution’s buildings directlyaffects educational outcomes. Students cannotlearn in crowded spaces with leaky roofs andinadequate lighting. Faculty cannot teach effec-tively without the necessary equipment, whichworks properly. And the educational processsuffers if students and faculty feel insecure orthreatened in the physical environment.

The validity of such arguments appears to be self-evident. However, a body of research supporting orrefuting the argument for better facilities does not exist.Only limited research exists and much of this researchis flawed because it fails to isolate key variables forevaluation. So instead, we must look at relatedresearch into human motivation, human factorsengineering, pedagogical studies and environmentalpsychology to determine how the physical environ-ment may affect the human capacity to learn.

Research into human motivation has been pursued bymany, and the theories postulated by Maslow,Herzberg, Mayo and Vroom provide some insights intothe effect of the environment on one’s motivation toteach or to learn. This research suggests that theenvironment can diminish or strengthen a student’smotivation to learn, as well as an instructor’s interest inteaching. The central factors within this research appearto be those associated with creating a perceived safeand supportive environment while a higher qualityenvironment has little effect on learning if it is notassociated with positive learning experiences.

Human factors research has been very productive indetermining the impact of the environment on humanphysiology. Temperature, lighting, noise, fatigue andfurniture have all been demonstrated to affect a studentor instructor’s ability to function in relation to factors

including maintaining concentration, processinginformation and memory retention. The researchsuggests that environmental conditions must bemaintained in a certain “bandwidth” which supportseffective human functioning. Anything beyond that iswasted, as it regards efficient information processingor learning.

Pedagogical research has focused on how humanslearn. This body of work concentrates primarily onthe interaction of the curriculum, teacher effective-ness and student attitudes. In this case, the environ-ment is of secondary importance and can only enrichor interfere with the interaction of these primaryvariables. Traditionally the focus of environmentalconcerns has been directed toward ensuring adequateblackboards, audio-visual equipment and acoustics,as well as essential instructional tools such as properlyequipped laboratories, libraries and educationalsupplies. Recently, attention has been directed towardthe use of technology and how it supports and evenreplaces traditional pedagogical methodology.

Environmental psychology, a subspecialty of generalpsychology, began to emerge in the late 1950s.Psychologists began to focus on how the manipula-tion of the environment could influence humanbehaviour. Research suggests that human perceptionof the environment invokes certain reactions, such asinducing stress, thoughtfulness, relaxation and otherbehaviours. Environmental stimuli can influencebehaviour conducive to learning. Since perception ishighly individualised, environmental psychology mayexplain why some students thrive in a given environ-ment and others do not. Therefore the value of thisresearch lies in the discovery of factors that generallysupport educational processes, and avoiding thosefactors that do not. One example would be theconcept of “personal space”, and how crowding canblock learning by diverting personal energy andfeelings of well-being.

As noted earlier, there has been some researchdirected toward evaluating the quality of the learningenvironment and educational outcomes. The Carnegie

Renée Méthot

13

Commission, for example, measured those factors thatinfluenced a student’s college selection. They foundthat a major factor was the overall appearance of theinstitution’s facilities. Other studies have beeninconclusive primarily because of failure to effectivelyisolate pertinent variables.

A review of this research allows some generalconclusions. First, the physical environment doesaffect human motivation, behaviour and performance.There is also a “bandwidth” of environmental condi-tions that a human finds “neutral”, in other words itprovides no stimulus or distraction. Third, researchsupports that there are physical conditions that createa sense of security, well-being and aid braindevelopment. Finally, the research shows that effectiveeducation requires a supportive physical environmentto successfully pursue educational processes andobjectives.

Considering these general conclusions, whatinferences can we draw with respect to creating andmanaging facilities? The research appears to indicatethat while maintaining a campus in “like new”condition enhances protection of the investment, thismay not necessarily support educational objectives.In fact, effective facilities design (types and usefulnessof space) may have a greater impact on educationaloutcomes than overall facilities condition. In otherwords, all facilities maintenance is not the same. Theremay exist an order of priorities in maintaining facilitieswhich maximises educational quality.

It also appears that natural settings positively influenceoverall human condition, meaning that the provisionof attractive grounds, art and photographs of naturallandscapes, or atriums with plants, fountains andnatural light can lower stress and foster concentra-tion and reflection.

In reviewing the relationship between the physicalenvironment and educational quality, an importantconclusion is that more specific, useful research mustbe conducted. For example, what specific factors inthe design and maintenance of buildings and facilitiesmost affect quality higher education? What is theoptimal balance between economics (maintainingbuilding values) and enhanced educational processessupported by facilities redesign, renovation or replace-ment? What impact will technology have on usefulbuilding life and the need for space on collegecampuses? What is the minimal level of maintenancerequired to protect learning processes? How does theintroduction of natural settings affect educationaloutcomes? And what should be the design andmaintenance priorities to maximise “curbside” appealto support recruitment or philanthropic objectives?

In conclusion we have discovered that there areprobably diminishing returns for building mainte-nance with respect to educational quality. In addition,in the future, facilities master planning and designshould shift from finding the “best land use” toemphasising the “best educational environment”. Weknow that good, flexible facilities design and effectivefacilities maintenance are integral to the success ofhigher education outcomes. Therefore, a comprehen-sive facilities management strategy needs to considerall factors related to education including economics,educational processes and the role of facilities in theentire higher education enterprise. To accomplish thismuch more targeted, relevant research is needed toaid such strategy development.

Who Should Own University Buildings?By Jan Ivar Mattsson, Director, Buildings Office, University ofUppsala, Sweden

A major reform of the governance and funding ofuniversities took place in Sweden in 1993. At the sametime, the system of managing public buildings wasremodelled. Under the new system, universities cannotown their buildings but are free to lease premises fromany property owner. Universities receive grants accord-ing to their number of students and are at liberty to usethe money as they choose. The other Nordic countriesare making similar changes.

With one or two exceptions, all Swedish universitiesare state-owned. Prior to 1993, a central authority –the National Board of Public Buildings – managedgovernment-owned property and leased premises touser authorities. The user authorities were charged rentthat included capital costs, maintenance costs andelectricity consumption. However, this rent was paidfrom a special grant which could not be used for otherpurposes, so in effect space was a free utility.

The National Board was also responsible for theacquisition of premises for the users. If more spacewas needed, the National Board decided how muchand whether the needs were to be met by renting or

Renée Méthot

14

constructing new space, and then leased the space tothe university. All decisions, even on fairly smallinvestments, were made by the government.

The procedure was very slow, the mechanisms forprioritising different needs were far from transparent andinvestments in public building were frequently used asa regulator for unemployment or other economical orpolitical purposes. The National Board was alsocriticised for its rigidity and for being overstaffed.

With the new system, ownership and management ofall university property, formerly owned by the stateand managed by the National Board, was transferredto one real estate company: Akademiska Hus Ltd. Thiscompany is owned 100% by the state.

It should be noted that the total space in public buildingsin Sweden is about 14 million m2. The value of theproperty can be estimated at some 40 billion Swedishcrowns or about USD 5 billion. If this capital were soldto companies, though themselves owned by the state,the companies would finance the purchase on theordinary loan market, and the National Debt Officewould be relieved by the same amount.

The system of governance and funding of universitiesin Sweden underwent a no less drastic change. Insteadof governing by legal framework and detaileddecisions by government for dividing resources amongthe various educational sectors and faculties, the newsystem features governing by goals and objectives,leaving the detailed decisions to the institution.Resources are allocated to each university, which hasthe right to further divide them as it sees fit betweenstudy programmes, faculties and departments.

Another important change is that Swedish authoritiesare not allowed to use their grants directly for invest-ments. If an investment is needed, such as for buyingequipment and furniture, the authority must take outa loan from the National Debt Office. Grants maythen be used for paying the capital costs (mortgageand interest). In this way, no investment can be writtenoff directly and every component of the expenditurebudget appears as an annual cost.

Today Swedish universities have an almost totalfreedom to lease premises. As long as the universitycan fit the lease costs and capital costs for equipmentand furniture into its annual budget, it is at liberty tolease from any real estate owner. The budget bounda-ries are set by the grants for students and researchand, of course, any external funding that the univer-sity can obtain. (At present, the average level of costsfor premises in Swedish universities is about 16% ofthe total annual expenditure.)

The change in system was accompanied by anincrease in grants for university education and thefounding of a number of university colleges. This wasa step taken by the Swedish Government to enhancehigher education and reduce unemployment. Incombination with the dammed-up demands for spacewhich were a result of the shortcomings of the oldsystem, this has led to a building boom with almostall universities undertaking extensive constructionprogrammes. (There have been some signs of “coldfeet” from the government vis-à-vis this development.)

After seven years of use, the new Swedish system hasproven to work very well. It has led to much greaterresponsibilities for universities, and all of them havehad to create or expand their administrative unitsresponsible for premises planning, lease negotiationsand internal charging of space. However, the numberof employees in the new companies represent abouttwo thirds of those employed by the National Boardfor the same purposes under the old system.

The question of how rent for university premisesshould be calculated has created controversy. Ownersargue that market-like rents should be used. Tenants,on the other hand, argue that rent should be basedon the costs for management and capital.

The changes in systems of management for universitybuildings in the other Nordic countries – Denmark,Finland and Norway – although starting from differentpoints all seem to lead to variants of the new Swedishmodel. The most important feature is the aim to separatethe management of buildings from their use. This inturn leads to the possibility of creating a professionalorganisation for planning, constructing and managingproperty and the necessity of a lease agreement betweenthe parties, to define costs and the responsibilities ofthe tenant and the landlord. The principles for thecalculation of rent, and hence the underlying distribu-tion of risk, created a major obstacle in the Swedishsystem. It seems that the other Nordic countries (possiblyby looking at the Swedish example) have tried to avoidthese problems by having government authorities rather

Renée Méthot

15

than companies manage the special-purpose propertiesand by specifying a cost-based rent.

The Swedish National Agency for Higher Educationhas published two reports on related subjects whichcan be obtained from their Web site:

• “The Current Swedish Model of UniversityGovernance – Background and Description” (inEnglish), http://www.hsv.se/publikationer/skrifter/pdf/HsV199810S.pdf

• “Rental Costs in Swedish Higher Education –Report to the Government” (in Swedish with a sum-mary in English), http://www.hsv.se/publikationer/rapporter/pdf/HsV199831R.pdf

Indicators on Strategic Performance andEquitable Financing: Key Parameters forManaging School InfrastructureBy Jean-Pascal Foucault, Executive Advisor on Management,Montreal Island School Council, Quebec

In Canada, more than 53% of schools were builtbetween 1950 and 1960. These schools were cheaplyconstructed, designed to meet the rapidly expandingpost-war population and to last an average of 30 years.In 1993, the overall maintenance and renovationdeficit for schools was estimated at someUSD 1 billion.1

There were identical developments in the otherindustrialised countries during the same period,although obviously on a different scale. This periodof mass construction of infrastructure and plant, bothpublic and private, created a series of new challenges.For example, as demand soared and outstrippedsupply, it promoted the use of new building techniquesand materials. This was dictated by short-terminterests, as priority was often given to building rapidlyand at low cost at the expense of quality. The conse-quences of this approach, in the wake of the oil crisisof the early 1970s, were that as schools began to age,it became apparent that the components of buildingswere proving short-lived, buildings were not energyefficient and there was insufficient financing formaintenance and renovation.

The proliferation of changes and additions to laws,standards and regulations in the construction industryand the public budget cuts of the last decade haveplaced enormous pressure on those responsible formanaging school infrastructure. For example, preven-tive maintenance is often neglected in order to meetshort-term needs, and carrying out maintenance andrenovation only after major problems have emergedis increasingly the norm.

1. Hanson, Shirley J. (1993), Les écoles canadiennes dans le rouge:La première étude nationale sur les installations scolaires, Associa-tion des administrateurs scolaires de l’Ontario, 252, rue Bloor Ouest,bureau 5-110, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 30 pp.

Economic climate and environmental pressures

High qualityserviceIncreased

complexity

Increasedcompetition

Organisationalefficiency

Increasedsubmissionof accounts

Change intype of

leadership

Increasedproductivity

Paceof change

Budgetcutbacks

Serviceresponsiblefor facilities

Strategic facilities management process

8th Action:Step up

preventiveactions

7th Action:Reduce

complaintsand

requests

2nd Action:Define

performanceindicators

6th Action:Determineinvestmentpriorities

5th Action:Demonstrate the

concept ofmaintenance

deficit

3rd Action:Assess the

buildings’ healthprofile

4th Action:Assess thesystem’s

performance

1st Action:Train and inform

people andidentify supports

The managers of school infrastructure have no choicebut to convince policy-makers and funding authori-ties of the strategic importance of plant (grounds andbuildings) in the mission of their organisation.

The first step towards a solution is to provide clearand transparent information on the situation and onthe medium- and long-term consequences of failureto take concerted action. We must even say that thereis a problem of risk management. This risk can bedefined as the threat that an occurrence, action orfailure to act will be detrimental to the objectives andimplementation of an organisation’s strategy. Forinstance, there are the financial risks connected with

16

1 - Condition of facilities indicator (CFI): CFI < 5%: satisfactoryCFI = (maintenance deficit/replacement value) x 100 5% < CFI < 10%: acceptable

CFI > 10%: low to critical

2 - Indicator of major repairs and renovation (modernisation) effort (IMRRE): 1.5% < IMRRE < 3%: satisfactoryIMRRE = ((annual cost of major repairs + annual cost of renovation and modernisation)/replacement value) x 100

3 - Indicator of renovation (conversion) effort (IRE): IRE: varies from one year to the next andIRE = (annual cost of renovation and conversion/ according to plant planning schedulesreplacement value) x 100

4 - Indicator of operations and maintenance effort (IOME): 0.5% < IOME < 2.5%: satisfactoryIOME = ((annual cost of operations and maintenance +cost of minor repairs)/replacement value) x 100

5 - Indicator of team productivity (ITP): ITP < 50%: satisfactoryITP = (number of hours spent on repair work/ ITP < 20%: excellentnumber of working hours) x 100

6 - Indicator of customer satisfaction (ICS): ICS > 70%: satisfactoryICS = (number of satisfied customers/total number ICS > 80%: excellentof customers) x 100N.B. Based on complaints or congratulations received or on surveys.

7 - Indicator of funding bodies’ satisfaction (IFBS): IFBS > 70%: satisfactoryIFBS = (number of board members in favour of the manager’s IFBS > 80%: excellentrecommendations/total number of board members) x 100N.B. On the basis of the recommendations adopted or on surveys.

8 - Indicator of employee satisfaction (IES): IES > 70%: satisfactoryIES = (number of satisfied employees/total number IES > 80%: excellentof employees) x 100N.B. On the basis of labour relations (complaints, disciplinary measures, absenteeism, etc.) and on surveys.

9 - Indicator of work standardisation (IWS): IWS > 50%: satisfactoryIWS = (annual cost of standardised or IWS > 70%: excellentregulated work)/replacement value) x 100

10 - Indicator of learning and innovation (ILI): ILI > or = 1%: satisfactoryILI = (annual cost of training/wage bill) x 100 ILI < 1%: low

11 - Indicator of occupation of facilities (IOF): IOF > 100%: growthIOF = (number of students/capacity in terms of places) x 100 IOF = 100%: satisfactory

IOF < 100%: decline

civil proceedings due to injuries or even loss of life,the inflated cost of work because demand is greaterthan supply, or the loss of revenue caused by a declinein the number of users. This calls for stringent manage-ment of the maintenance and renovation of buildings.Are we willing to assume this responsibility?

What financial resources must be invested in order tocarry out regular maintenance and renovation? Whatbudget is required to meet present and future needs?Which components of buildings should be givenpriority within a strategic intervention plan for schoolinfrastructure? Can one estimate the cost of demanddue to the ageing of school infrastructure? Do we havethe necessary tools to support decision-making tomanage the situation?

By defining the parameters of school infrastructuremanagement, such as maintenance and currentoperations, upgrading, renovation and the maintenancedeficit,2 one can develop measurable and comparablestrategic indicators. Performance indicators are by nomeans exclusively of a financial nature, but also involveanalysis of the internal management procedures of theservice responsible for facilities, evaluation of serviceto customers and assessment of the ability of humanresources to learn and innovate.3

2. Office fédéral des questions conjoncturelles (1992), PI-BAT,Méthode MERIP, Bern, Switzerland.

3. APPA, The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers (1999),The Strategic Assessment Model, TechniGraphix, Alexandria, Virginia,United States,117 pp., http://www.appa.org

The following is a set of basic performance indicators that can enable managers to maintain a balanced scoreboardof indicators:

17

Higher Education Statistics ProjectsBy John Rushforth, Head of Estates, Higher Education FundingCouncil for England, United Kingdom

A detailed and consultative study was carried out inthe higher education sector in the United Kingdom,which aimed to produce a set of key estate manage-ment statistics and definitions to support them. TheHigher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE) commissioned the study on 26 January 1998.Outputs of the research were published in PEBExchange February 2000, and the process developedto carry out the project is developed here.

The study arose because it was recognised that there wasa need to develop a coherent, consistent, relevant andusable set of data which could assist estate managersand senior managers of institutions in improving themanagement of their institutions. The study focused on“core” estate matters. There is always debate as to theprecise boundaries of the role of estates: does it includethose roles often ascribed to facilities management, suchas telecommunications and catering, or is it concentratedon estate strategy, development and maintenance?Undoubtedly the precise role of estate managementdiffers from institution to institution and will change overtime, but for the purposes of this study attention wasfocused on the more “traditional” role of estate manage-ment, and hence the data needed to support this role.

Participation in the project was voluntary and 39 insti-tutions volunteered. Central to the successful comple-tion of the project was the process used to carry out thework. A key first stage was developing and agreeing toa set of sound governing principles; these were:

• The methodology was kept as simple as possible.

• The project was designed to use existing institu-tional data as far as possible.

• It was capable of being extended to others in thesector.

• It allowed the basis for the comparison of highereducation institutions with other sectors andinternationally.

• The conclusions were intended to be transparentand readily understood by institutions.

• Any audit and checking of information could beincorporated, wherever possible, into existingarrangements and should be non-intrusive.

• The conclusions were intended to be non-judgmental; there is no right answer for what thespace utilisation target for an institution should be –the research was to enable informed judgements tobe made.

A central element of the methodology used as partof the study was consultation with the participatinginstitutions (termed “sponsors”). Also a SteeringGroup was set-up and comprised a representativeselection of members of the sector, including nonestates professionals. The Steering Group played akey role in ensuring the research satisfied the needsof the sector.

Early on in the project a questionnaire was issued tothe sponsor institutions. It elicited information aboutestate management roles and responsibilities, whatthe sponsors wanted from the project, how and whatstatistics are used currently, limitations with currentmeasures and data availability.

HEFCE avoided describing things as performancemeasures; instead they used the notion of a Key EstateRatio (KER) which was simply a combination of corestatistics. KERs were viewed as basic interrogationtools for estate management and the senior manage-ment of institutions.

A one-day seminar discussed the results of the ques-tionnaire analysis and probed more deeply topics suchas defining data, KERs to focus upon, using andapplying the data, and the most appropriate means oftaking the project forward.

An initial set of KERs were developed and reviewedby the project team and Steering Group. The KERswere then formally assessed by the sponsors. Inparticular, a rank was attached to each KER by thedirector of estates, the director of finance and the vicechancellor/principal. An assessment was then madebased upon three key criteria: likely data availability,ability to misinterpret the data and relevance of theindicator. From a wide potential range of key statisticsand indicators, 14 which could be delivered “now”and which were considered to be “priority” wereselected. They fell into four categories: meetingbusiness needs, controlling costs, using space effec-tively and managing well.

Paul

Lal

iber

té

18

A set of definitions relating to the data items sup-porting these KERs was developed. As an exampleof some of the definitional issues that arose, it isworth briefly examining the breakdown of spacerequired by type of activity. This was an area of somecontroversy amongst the sponsors with commentsfrom some that such a breakdown was artificial sinceit was difficult or impossible to distinguish howspace is used in the higher education institution. Ifinstitutions could not break down the type of spacethey use it would be very difficult to develop inter-institution comparisons. Thus, one of the main driv-ers of space utilisation is the amount of researchactivity undertaken. It is very difficult to compareone institution with another if the effects of differ-ent types of activity cannot be split out. Breakingdown the type of space allows attention to be fo-cused on key parts of the higher education service,looking at costs per square metre and per studentand also space utilisation for research, teaching,office and other support space. Other institutionscommented that they did not realise how littleteaching space they had in relation to office space.

The next step was the collection of the data. Testingof the data capture mechanism was fast-tracked witha selection of the sponsors. Following this, the for-mal full data collection was undertaken electroni-cally. It was necessary to provide detailed supportand guidance to sponsors in completing the elec-tronic return. This included an opportunity to re-view their return after it had been checked by theproject team, with any inconsistencies or apparenterrors in returns highlighted. Following this valida-tion process the full results were issued to sponsorinstitutions.

HEFCE at first assumed that institutions would wanttheir data to be confidential. However, once the analy-sis and suggested groupings were looked at by theSteering Group, they agreed that the sector is sodiverse that any groupings would not be reasonable.This was because for some indicators, institutionswould want to look at indicators for say all city centreuniversities, whilst for others subject mix would beimportant, whilst for others regional factors would berelevant. What would make the data useful would beto look at the data of other known institutions so thateach institution could construct the peer group of itschoice for specified statistics. This meant that infor-mation would have to be freely available, and all theparticipating institutions readily agreed to this.

Alongside issuing the final data results to sponsors, a“user satisfaction” questionnaire was issued. Thisasked for comments on the success of the project,including the usefulness of the outputs, methodologyused and relevance of material. The sponsors reportedclear support on all these issues, particularly in termsof the consultative approach used in the study.

Some Results:

Space requiring major repair or inoperablespace: 31%

Non-residential property costs• per square metre: GBP 73

• per student (full-time equivalent): GBP 731

• as percentage of total revenue: 9%

Research property costs as percentage ofresearch revenue: 6.7%

Maintenance costs per square metre of grossinternal area: GBP 13.39

Gross residential income per bed space:GBP 1 748

Non-residential space per student (FLE): 11.3 m2

Office floor space per office-based staff: 13.4 m2

Estate management costs as percentage of totalproperty costs: 3.7%

Conclusions

Whilst there was commonality in terms of data“needs” between institutions, there was a widerdifference in terms of capabilities to deliver data. Thiswas built into the recommendations of the project interms of application of the KERs.

Renée Méthot

19

It was also clear that the consultative and iterativeprocess used helped to achieve sector “buy-in”. Thisapproach was viewed as important as a means ofprogressing work in this area in the future.

In certain respects the actual definitions and dataproduced from the study are not the most importantoutputs, valuable as they have been to the sector. Ofgreater value – arguably – is the fact that such defini-tions and data have been produced for the first time.The details can now be sorted out now that aconsistent, comprehensive and usable framework isin place.

Comparative data is not an end in itself. Unless theinformation is rooted in the business needs of theorganisations, people will not participate or con-tribute.

The challenge is now how to extend the exercise fromthe 39 institutions to the 200 institutions in the UnitedKingdom. In keeping with their efforts throughout theproject, HEFCE has consulted and is moving towardsan all sector analysis, with the first national collec-tion of data due in May.

Seminar conclusionsBy Richard Yelland, Head of Programme, OECD Programmeon Educational Building

The infrastructure of tertiary education has to changein response to a changing policy environment.

Higher and tertiary education is changing in threemain ways:

• It is becoming more diverse.

• The institutions that provide it are becoming morebusiness-like in the way they approach their task.

• Although judgements in this area are subjective itseems to many that the pace of change is becom-ing ever more rapid.

Secondly, it is now widely accepted that we live in aknowledge-based society. The knowledge economyis growing fast, and interdisciplinary-learning is be-coming increasingly important.

Moreover the public sector, which in some systemsnever had a monopoly of provision, is losing it in somecountries where it did. The challenges from the privatenot-for-profit and increasingly the private for-profitsectors as well as competition from conventionalproviders within and across international boundariesare growing.

In this context there are some things that we knowand that we can hold on to; some things we think weknow – or at least know how to find out; and somethings we clearly do not know as well as we need.

Things we know

We know that growth in student numbers(“massification”) has been strong. Although it isshowing signs of stabilising in some countries – atleast for full-time students under the age of 25 – thereis still considerable unmet demand for continuingvocational and professional training.

As lifelong learning has developed, the proportion ofadult students has increased, changing the needs thatfacilities must meet.

Students have greater choice: of programmes, ofinstitutions, of methods of delivery.

For a number of reasons, not the least of which is thefact that students are being asked to finance theirstudies directly, the expectations of clients – studentsthemselves, their families or their employers – havebeen raised. This applies to the relevance ofprogrammes and qualifications, the quality ofoutcomes and the employability of graduates, as wellas to the standards of service provided.

There is greater pressure on institutions to provideevidence of efficiency and to be accountable for theresources under their management.

Ren

ée M

étho

t

20

Things we think we know

We have some confidence in the informationavailable to us about the facilities we have, theircondition, their costs and their suitability. We be-lieve we know how to manage them reasonably ef-ficiently and how much ought to be spent to getthem into good shape. We may not be able to con-vince those who hold the purse-strings to make avail-able the necessary funds or to treat facilities man-agement with the seriousness which we believe itdeserves, but we are growing in confidence in ourprofessional capacity to manage.

We also have a reasonably good understanding ofwhat education used to be like, and continues to bein the majority of institutions: of how teachers workand how students behave.

Things we don’t know

However we are very unsure of the impact of compe-tition, particularly from the private for-profit sector,including organisations such as media companieswhich have not hitherto been seen as education

providers. Related to this is our lack of understandingof how information technologies will develop andinfluence the sector. There appears to be an explo-sion of on-line delivery, but we do not know to whatextent this is meeting new demand, will replacetraditional mode of delivery for existing students, orwill be incorporated in and enhance that provision.In short, we do not feel very confident in our analysisof where our business is heading and of how educa-tion is changing.

And crucially we are unable to answer the questionswhich as professionals we are going to have to getused to facing more frequently. What difference dofacilities design and management actually make? Howwill it impact on student outcomes if we deliver inone way rather than another?

Responses to change

The tertiary sector and its managers have beenresponding in a number of ways:

• flexibility of design (more variety of spaces andfacilities);

• flexibility of procurement (more leasing and shareduse);

• flexibility of management (better planning of spaceuse);

• new management tools;

• more professionalism in our work.

Work to do

But there are a number of areas where we need to domore. There is a clear need for some basic researchinto the impact that facilities have on learning. Theinformation and knowledge that we have needs to bebetter shared between ourselves – nationally and in-ternationally. The case needs to be made more stronglythat facilities management has a legitimate voice instrategic institutional management.

In conclusion…

It is important that we strive to bring together facilitiesmanagement, the development and analysis ofeducational policy, and the practice of teaching andlearning. Each of these fields is complex and has itsown professional and research literature, but if theydo not work together the opportunity for change willbe lost. In the final analysis our business is abouteducational excellence, but it is also about institu-tional survival at a time when there are no guaranteesfor the future.

Marc Robitaille

21

Contacts

William A. DaigneauVice PresidentOperations and Facilities ManagementM. D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Box 238,Houston, TX 77030, United StatesFax: 1 713 745 1753E-mail: Daigneau@mail.mdanderson.org

Jean-Pascal Foucault, ing.Conseiller cadre en gestionConseil scolaire de l’île de Montréal500, boulevard Crémazie EstMontreal, (Quebec) H2P 1E7, CanadaFax: 1 514 384 2139E-mail: jean-pascal.foucault@csim.qc.ca

Jan Ivar MattssonDirector, Buildings OfficeUppsala UniversityPO Box 256S-751 05 Uppsala, SwedenFax: 46 18 471 1708E-mail: JanIvar.Mattsson@uadm.uu.se

John RushforthHead of EstatesHigher Education Funding Council for EnglandColdharbour LaneBristol, BS16 1QD, United KingdomFax: 44 117 931 7173,E-mail: J.Rushforth@hefce.ac.uk

Richard YellandHead of ProgrammeOECD Programme on Educational Building (PEB)2, rue André-Pascal75775 Paris Cedex 16, FranceFax: 331 42 24 02 11E-mail: richard.yelland@oecd.org

STILL AVAILABLE

Strategic Asset Management is based on theproceedings of the PEB international workshop inSydney, Australia, that examined current trends intertiary education policy: a more open market,student-centredness and user choice, lifelong learn-ing and the blurring of sectoral differences. It showshow the role of facilities managers is evolving andhow the resources invested in facilities can be madeto work more efficiently in the pursuit of institu-tional objectives.

OECD Code 951999011P, 72 pages,ISBN 92-64-17014-6, Oct-1999FRF 140, USD 25, DEM 42, GBP 15, JPY 3 150

The photographs illustrating this article are of tertiaryinstitutions visited during the Quebec seminar. PEB wishesto thank the University Laval, the Université du Québec àMontréal, the Cégep de Sainte-Foy, the Centre intégré enalimentation et tourisme (Quebec City) and the École detechnologie supérieure (Montreal) for their welcome.

………………………………………………………………………

22

DEBATE

WIRED VERSUSWIRELESSWhat follows is an edited transcript of an interviewwith Glenn Meeks and Prakash Nair by RandallFielding, U.S. architect and planner, contributingeditor to “School Construction News” and the editorof “Design Share”.

R. FIELDING: Prakash Nair made presentations at theCEFPI and UEF/PEB/CAE conferences in Baltimore lastfall, putting forth the notion that schools would bebetter off investing in laptops and wireless networksrather than wiring classrooms for desktop computers.What is your opinion on this approach?

MEEKS: I agree with Prakash Nair that in terms ofmobility and access, laptops are great. But in terms ofvalue for your money, I do not agree. Meeks Technology

recently planned a high school inAllen, Texas, with a footprint ofnearly 500 000 square feet(45 000 m2). The bid for a hard-wired network came in atUSD 1.5 million; the systemincluded 5 600 data/power ports,spread throughout the building,with an electrical outlet and100 megabytes per second net-work transmission capacity ateach port. An alternative bid fora wireless system came in atUSD 3.5 million; the system

included 200 to 300 transmitting hubs, delivering10 MB per second shared capacity at each node.

The curriculum calls for students to present assign-ments using multimedia tools, with files often exceed-ing 15 MB – too large to work effectively with wirelesstechnology. The wired solution offers ten times thecapacity at less than one half the cost – an easydecision for Allen High School.

NAIR: I predict that, two years from now, this debatewill look ridiculous because advances in technologywill make wireless communications in the classroomthe only sensible choice in most situations. Costs arechanging rapidly. Whereas the Allen High Schoolproject was bid with PC transmitting cards that costin the USD 350 to USD 500 range, a WaveLAN card,developed by Lucent Technologies, is now availablefor USD 179.

RF: Your argument for laptops and wireless net-works is particularly compelling for renovationprojects, where the costs of opening walls andexpanding the electrical power infrastructure aregreatest. Do you have the same opinion for newconstruction?

NAIR: I would definitely propose that all new schoolsconsider wireless first. Getting into the actualtechnology solutions for a minute, let us take a hallwayin an old school with eight classrooms in a double-

Billions of dollars are being invested in wiringschools for desktop computer networks. Laptopcomputers and wireless networks offer an appeal-ing alternative, promising greater access for thelearner and reduced infrastructure. Glenn Meeks andPrakash Nair debate the issues. G. Meeks is Presidentof Meeks Technology Group in Cary, North Carolina,which helps educational organisations with tech-nological planning and implementation. PrakashNair is President Elect of Urban EducationalFacilities for the 21st Century (UEF-21), New YorkCity, an organisation committed to the developmentof urban educational facilities that provide the bestpossible learning environment for children.

23

loaded corridor. One option is to fully wire two ofthese classrooms and equip them each with 30 com-puters. Under this scenario, the remaining six class-rooms will not be computer enabled.

Assuming that this same corridor has four wirelesshubs installed with overlapping coverage, any twounwired classrooms equipped with wireless cards canbe simultaneously on the wireless LAN, each receiving20 MB per second of data. Since the LAN itself is onlyused to communicate with the Internet or sendmessages to others on the network, this data-transferrate or bandwidth is more than adequate.

I believe that the economics for wireless computingworks in new buildings as well. I am a proponent ofwireless computing not simply because of theeconomics, but because it provides the least intrusiveand most flexible method for bringing computers intoclassrooms and into school.

RF: How is it possible that wiring for hubs in keylocations can cost twice as much as wiring allclassrooms?

MEEKS: One wireless transmitting hub for every 1 500to 2 000 square feet (150-200 m2) is required. ForAllen High School, this resulted in 200 to 300 hubs.In this case, we had steel floor construction; hubscannot transmit through steel floors. Each hub itselfcosts USD 985; add to that the cost of the card at thetransmitting location, plus the cards in the laptopsthemselves. You also have to consider the power re-quirements to charge hundreds of laptops. The bat-tery life before re-charging is about two hours. Youneed charging stations or mobile charging carts witha large capacity.

You also need to consider the long-term costs. Desk-top computers are often used for five years and longerin schools; when a hard drive breaks down, it can bereplaced economically. Laptops typically cost twiceas much as desktops for the equivalent features; thetypical life span is two and a half years, and if a harddrive breaks down, it’s not economical to replace it.

Another factor to keep in mind is the global limita-tions of bandwidth. Wireless networks are undergo-ing explosive growth, and there is simply not enoughbandwidth to accommodate it. As processor speedsand hard drive capacities have increased, so have filesizes, and this trend will continue. There is no tech-nology on the horizon that will allow wirelessnetworks to catch up with the bandwidth capabilitiesof a wired network.

RF: There is a good deal of research and literaturethat questions the value of technology for learning,

or at a minimum, advises a good deal of caution.Clifford Stoll writes: “No computer can teach whata walk through a pine forest feels like. Sensation hasno substitute.” Please comment.

MEEKS: The ability to manipulate information is thekey to economic success in our society. Technologyis actually increasing the gap between the haves andhave-nots. It’s critical that our schools teach computerskills in order to level the playing field.

NAIR: We need to find the best way to integratetechnology into the curriculum – and I am not talkingabout the obsolete idea of computer labs. Also, thepopular practice of putting one, two or four PCs in aclassroom is a dumb idea. It takes away valuable spacein already overcrowded classrooms and does nothingto integrate computers into the curriculum.

From my own observation, I know that a computerin a child’s hands can become an instrument forlearning – particularly in poor, urban areas wherecomputers and the Internet can bring a wealth ofinformation resources to children that they wouldotherwise not have access to. For computers to bemeaningfully integrated into the curriculum inschools, I am convinced that two criteria need tobe satisfied:

First, kids need to have access to laptops or some otherportable computing device if not full time, then forsome significant period of each school day. I sayportable device because the computer should beusable as a tool to enhance learning English, socialstudies, geography, math or even music. It should beavailable when needed and out of the way when notneeded – like a pencil. A PC is simply not suitable inthat context. Second, kids should be able to havestructured access to the Internet, to supplement thework they do in class, in the library and at home.

Conclusions

Laptops and a wireless network provide the mostaccess and flexibility for learners. For renovationprojects, particularly in cities with high labour costs,laptops and a wireless network are more economicalas well. For new construction, a hard-wired networkwith desktop computers is currently the mosteconomical installation and affords greater bandwidthfor large multimedia files. Data on the future costsand bandwidth capabilities for wireless networks areinconclusive.

My opinion is that computers should be de-empha-sised or left out altogether from elementary educa-tion. Research from numerous sources indicate that

24

computers for children under ten years of age aremore likely to do harm than good. My own experi-ence bears this out. I recently attended a studentdisplay at my daughter’s elementary school. Thepreponderance of computer-generated graphics wasastonishing but sad; there was a sameness about itall. A small minority created their own graphics –crude, colourful images – displaying creativityunmatched by the computer-generated materials.Young children should learn to use their hands, eyesand voices – there is time enough for “professional-ism” in later grades.

Both G. Meeks and P. Nair assume that a fully accessiblecentral network is critical in schools. I question thisassumption. School is an ideal place for collaborativelearning, social interaction and face-to-face involve-ment with teachers. Continual access to a localnetwork or the Internet are not necessary and may beat cross purposes with the interactive potential of theschool environment. Utilising laptops, middle andhigh school learners can connect to the Internet athome and on a part-time basis in school. A limitednumber of students can connect to a local networkfor presentations and file sharing at any given time.Students can charge their laptops at home or in alibrary carol. Two hours of laptop use a day in schoolis sufficient for a balanced learning programme. Alimited number of charging stations in classrooms canaccommodate the exceptions. This approach wouldeliminate many of the costs associated with electricaland network wiring.

Constant access to high bandwidth connections fortransmission of multimedia files is not critical. Wordprocessing, spreadsheets, and most Web site design,drawing and image editing can be handled effectivelywith laptops. Full motion video and processing oflarge, high-resolution files can be handled by a limitednumber of “mission critical” desktop computers inproject labs.

An academic “house”, with a common resource area,surrounded by a group of classrooms for related agegroups has merit, but designing it for 25 to 30 com-puters seems short-sighted. A school building willlikely be around for 40 years or more, but theintegration of computers in curriculum will surely gothrough radical changes in the next ten years. A bettermodel for a common area is a flexible project space,with electrical power for computers and otherequipment, flat tables for projects, a sink, small libraryand space for group meetings.

For an on-line version of this article in its entirety,see http://www.designshare.com

Contacts

Randall FieldingPresidentDesign Share4937 Morgan Avenue SouthMinneapolis, MN 55409, USAFax: 1 612 922 6631E-mail: fielding@designshare.comhttp://www.designshare.com

Glenn MeeksPresidentMeeks Technology Group209 New Edition CourtCary, North Carolina 27511, USAE-mail: gmeeks@meeksgeeks.comhttp://www.meeksgeeks.com/

Prakash Nair, RA, REFPNational Director for Education Technology ConsultingNoteSys, LLCNew York, USATel.: 1 718 459 0342, fax: 1 718 459 4445E-mail: PrakashN@NoteSys.com or pnair@aol.comhttp://www.designshare.com/uef.htm

References

Healy, Jane M. (1999), Failure to Connect: How Computers AffectOur Children’s Minds – and What We Can Do About It, Touch-stone Books.

Tapscott, Don (1997), Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the NetGeneration, McGraw-Hill.

……………………………………………………………………

CORRECTION

John Mayfield, author of the article “DesigningSchools for the Information Society: Libraries andResource Centres” published in PEB Exchange 39,can be contacted at the following address:

Danton Services International18 Bishop StreetSkye 5072Australia

25

BOOK REVIEW

Raising Standards: Opening Doors –Developing Links Between Schoolsand Their Communities

Produced by the Department for Education andEmployment, United Kingdom

1999, 52 pages

Synopsis by Sheldon Ferguson, DfEE

Schools have a place at the heart of local communi-ties: physically, in a bricks and mortar sense, as wellas socially. In many areas, they house the best facilitiesfor sports, organised childcare, adult education andcommunity activities of all kinds. In some areas, theschool is the only space which local people can usefor such activities.

Many schools in the United Kingdom already sharetheir premises and facilities. The governmentwelcomes this practice and is keen for more schoolsto build on this strong base.

Why make schools a community resource? OpeningDoors: Raising Standards identifies considerablebenefits for a school to maximise the use of itsfacilities by the community. Links with parents andlocal organisations can improve educationalstandards through increased student motivation andexpectations. Making premises available for mothertongue teaching improves links with minoritycommunities while enhancing children’s education.The increased use of schools for longer hoursdiscourages vandalism and break-ins. School-basedplaygroups enable young mothers to return to work.Several case studies illustrate how communitieshave benefited from the wider use of schoolpremises by offering re-skilling courses and thusimproving employability – as well as creatingpositive role models.

The document explains how schools can make greateruse of premises without impinging on curriculumrequirements. The law allows governing bodies theautonomy to decide how and when to use premises,with certain exceptions (e.g. for general and localelections). Nevertheless, for some schools this can bean administrative millstone. This is addressed byinformation on Transfer of Control Agreements (TofCAs).TofCAs enable governing bodies to transfer the whole,or any part, of the school premises to another body forparticular activities and specified hours.

Schools are reminded of various financial require-ments that they need to consider before opening theirdoors, such as how to fund additional running costsand capital works associated with community use.Information is supplied on local authorities subsidisingcommunity activities from allocation pots notdelegated to schools and on how users can be chargedfor the use of the premises and facilities.

Finally there is guidance on practical considerations:sites and their layout, access for users, furnituresuitable for adult education, staffing, health and safetyrequirements, insurance, licensing requirements,security matters, energy use and maintenance.

Free copies of this publication can be obtained from:DfEE Publications(Reference RSOD)PO Box 5050AnnesleyNottingham NG15 ODJUnited KingdomTel.: 44 171 845 602 2260Fax: 44 171 845 603 3360http://www.dfee.gov.uk/opendoor

For further information, contact:Chris BissellPrincipal ArchitectDfEECaxton House, Tothill StreetLondon SW1H 9NFUnited KingdomTel.: 44 171 273 62 15Fax: 44 171 273 67 62

26

PUBLICATIONS

OECD PUBLICATIONSAvailable from OECD distributors. See page 27.

The Appraisal of Investments in EducationalFacilitiesThis report follows a conference hosted by PEB andthe European Investment Bank. See page 2.

OECD Code 952000011P1, 236 pagesISBN 92-64-17036-7, Feb-2000FRF 150, USD 24, DEM 45, GBP 15, JPY 2 600

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators2000 EditionEducation at a Glance provides a rich and up-to-datearray of indicators representing the consensus ofprofessional thinking on how to measure the currentstate of education internationally.

OECD Code 962000041P1, 385 pagesISBN 92-64-17199-1, May-2000FRF 275, USD 42, DEM 82, GBP 26, JPY 4 500

Knowledge Management in the Learning SocietyThis book is an ambitious attempt to better understandknowledge and learning processes at a sectorial level,and makes a strong plea for strengthening theknowledge management at every level of theeducation system.

OECD Code 962000011P1, 260 pagesISBN 92-64-17182-7, Feb-2000FRF 320, USD 51, DEM 95, GBP 32, JPY 5 550

The Response of Higher Education Institutionsto Regional NeedsThe agenda of universities has moved on from a desireto simply increase the general education level of thepopulation and the output of scientific research; thereis now a greater concern to harness university educa-tion and research to specific economic and socialobjectives. Nowhere is this demand for specificitymore clear than in the field of regional development.What contribution do universities make to thedevelopment of the regions they are located in? Theycertainly have passive impacts in terms of direct andindirect employment; yet, how can the resources ofuniversities be mobilised to actively contribute to thedevelopment process? The challenge addressed in thisbook is how should higher education institutionsrespond to demands which are emanating from a setof actors and agencies concerned with regionaldevelopment and thus help reach national objectives.OECD Code 891999111P1, 152 pagesISBN 92-64-17143-6, Nov-1999FRF 140, USD 22, DEM 42, GBP 14, JPY 2 550

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

General Design Brief for Post-Primary SchoolsThis Brief contains general information on schooldesign; room functions, layouts and interrelationships;procedures; and costs and is for issue to design teamsand school authorities for new schools and extensionsin Ireland.

Planning & Building Unit, Department of Education& Science, Porlaoise Road, Tullamore, Co. Offaly,IrelandTel.: 353 506 21363, fax: 353 506 5111938 pages, Feb-2000

Planning Guidelines for Primary SchoolsThese Guidelines reflect many of the recent changesin the educational system in Ireland, changes that haveplaced greater demands on schools for additionalspace to provide for a growing range of teaching andsupport services. Increased sizes of general purposerooms, extra floor area provision for classroom stor-age, administration, etc. are addressed for the firsttime. Guidance is also provided in relation to facilitiesfor information technology.Planning & Building Unit, Department of Education& Science, Porlaoise Road, Tullamore, Co. Offaly,Ireland

Tel.: 353 506 21363, fax: 353 506 5111942 pages, Jan-2000

Géographie de l’école : les années 1990This special issue of the series “Géographie de l’école”describes the evolution of the French educationalsystem over the last decade. It provides a wealth ofstatistics on changes in the social and economiclandscape, demography, class size, student housing,costs and results.

Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de la Rechercheet de la Technologie, Direction de la Programmationet du Développement, 3-5, boulevard Pasteur, 75015Paris, FranceSales:DP&D-BEDTel.: 33 1 55 55 72 04, fax: 33 1 55 55 72 29ISBN 2-11-090838-4, 80 pages, Nov-1999FRF 150

27

PEB Exchange, OECD Publications, printed in France.

I would like to subscribe to PEB Exchange (88 00 00 1 P)2000 annual subscription price (3 issues): FRF 290, USD 55, DEM 95, GBP 31, JPY 5 900

Name: _______________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________________

❏ Cheque or money order enclosed.

❏ VISA No. _______________________________

❏ Mastercard No. _______________________________

❏ Eurocard No. _______________________________

Expiry Date: _________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________

ORDERINGIf you do not already subscribe to PEB Exchange and would liketo do so, please return the coupon below to one of the followingaddresses.

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

CanadaRenouf Publishing Company Ltd.5369 Canotek RoadOttawa, ON KIJ 9J3Tel.: 1613 745 2665Fax: 1613 745 7660E-mail: order.dept@renouf.books.com

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: mexico.contact@oecd.org

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: washington.contact@oecd.org

Germany and all other countriesDVG mbH (OECD)Birkenmaarstrasse 8D-53340 MeckenheimTel.: 49 (0) 2225 926166Fax: 49 (0) 2225 926169E-mail: oecd@dvg.dsb.netWeb site: http://www.oecd.org

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

28

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

PEB DIARY the journal of the OECDProgramme on

Educational Building

ORGANISATION FORECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

AND DEVELOPMENT

PEBEXCHANGE

BP E

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/

E-mail: richard.yelland@oecd.org

Richard YellandHead of the Programme

© OECD(88 2000 40 1 P)

ISBN 92-64-17575-X

2000 subscription (3 issues):FRF 290 USD 55 DEM 95

GBP 31 JPY 5 900

ISSN 1018-9327

(Single issue: FRF 120)

September

11-13 – The OECD Education Indicators Programme (INES) will hold its fourthGeneral Assembly in Tokyo. It will explore future directions for the Organisation’squantitative work in the field of education and training; topics will include measuringthe quality of educational outcomes, estimating economic and social returns tolearning, and key determinants of educational success. Contact: Andreas Schleicher,tel.: 33 1 45 24 93 66, fax: 33 1 45 24 90 98, e-mail: andreas.schleicher@oecd.org

26-30 - “Networking Environmental Education Networks” is the theme of the7th Conference of Environmental Education in Europe which will take place inUdine, Italy. It will focus on the role, trends, communication and integrationof networks involved in education for environment and sustainability withinlocal, national and European policies. Contact: LaREA, tel.: 39 0432 889014,fax: 39 0432 889798, e-mail: larea@cifra.uniud.it, http://www.larea.uniud.it

27-28 – AGPI/AIPM in Quebec, Canada, will hold a seminar to explore the advantagesand disadvantages of outsourcing different responsibilities for the management(maintenance, improvements, renovation) of tertiary education facilities. It willtake place in French. Contact: Jean-Jacques Barrette, tel. 1 514 364 3320, #286,fax: 1 514 364 7130, e-mail: jjbarrette@claurendau.qc.ca

30 September - 3 October – CEFPI will hold its 77th Annual InternationalConference and Tradeshow in Orlando, Florida, USA. Contact: Barbara Worth,tel.: 1 480 391 0840, http://www.cefpi.com

October

22-25 – “Sustainable Building 2000” is an international conference for buildingpractitioners and researchers. It will address environmental impacts in the planning,construction and building services sectors; urban sustainability in differenteconomies; and the political impacts in terms of sustainability goals. This jointconference of CIB, GBC, Novem and VROM will take place in Maastricht. Contact:Conference Organisation Secretariat, P.O. Box 1558, 6501 BN Nijmegen,Netherlands, tel.: 31 24 323 44 71, fax: 31 24 360 11 59, e-mail: sb2000@novem.nl,http://www.novem.nl/SB2000

November

1-3 – “Schooling for Tomorrow” is the theme of a conference organised by theOECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). See p. 3.

December

7-8 – A conference entitled “Finding the Resources for Lifelong Learning” will beco-hosted by the OECD and a partnership of the Council of Ministers of EducationCanada, Human Resources Development Canada and the Forum of Labour MarketMinisters. The purpose will be to debate the policy issues that arise in raisingrates of return to lifelong learning, and in increasing financial resources for lifelonglearning. The conference also will consider how to co-ordinate better decisionsin different policy areas (e.g. education, labour market, taxation) that affectresources. It will be held in Ottawa, Canada. Contact: Gregory Wurzburg,tel.: 33 1 45 24 92 95, fax: 33 1 45 24 90 98, e-mail: gregory.wurzburg@oecd.org