evaluation of the small secondary schools project in...

Educational Buildings Occasional Paper No. 9

Evaluation of the Small Secondary Schools Projectin Thailand

BUILDING EVALUATION

By the Project Task Force, Department of General Education,Ministry of Education, Thailand

UNESCO PRINCIPAL REGIONAL OFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, BANGKOK, 1996

Report printed under UNESCO-AGFUND Regional Project, Development of Educational Facilities in Asia and the Pacific

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) document. WARNING! Spelling errors might subsist. In order to accessto the original document in image form, click on "Original" button on 1st page.

© UNESCO 1996

Published by theUNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the PacificP.O. Box 967, Prakanong Post OfficeBangkok 10110, Thailand

Printed in Thailand

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply the

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country,

territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

BKAP/96/M/l83-2000


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many thanks are extended to the UNESCO team whose professional and moral support provided the driving force to

make this study a success.

This project could not have been completed without the co-operation of the staff from Sutham Witthaya School,

Uthai Thani. The Task Force would like to express its most sincere gratitude to them.


PREFACE

The Department of General Education (DGE) developed a secondary school prototype project, with assistance from

UNESCO, in 1986, The building was constructed as a pilot project in Uthai Thani Province.

A task force was assigned to evaluate the prototype, taking into account its suitability for teaching-learning activities andits observance of a number of architectural principles. The evaluation results led to modification and the development of asecond prototype design. Based on a policy of the Department, this design has been used for the past ten fiscal years, with about50 schools constructed annually.

The evaluation project was implemented by two groups: the Evaluation Committee and the Professional Task Force. Thetwo groups carried out their duties separately. This report contains their findings.

iii


CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Background of the Prototype for Small Secondary School Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Prototype: Sutham Witthaya School, Uthai Thani Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Scope of Study: Evaluation Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Building Evaluation: Suitability for Teaching/Learning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

PROTOTYPE I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .......... 21

PROTOTYPE II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ....... 27

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ........ 31

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ....... 41

ANNEXES

Annex A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ........... 45

Annex B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............ . 48


BACKGROUND OF THE PROTOTYPE FOR SMALLSECONDARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS

During the implementation of the Fifth National Economic andSocial Development Plan (1981-1986), the Royal Thai Governmentconstructed secondary schools for every district throughout thecountry. By 1989 efforts to extend secondary education to the sub-district level resulted in the construction of more than 1,800secondary schools. These were placed under the jurisdiction of theDepartment of General Education (DGE).

These schools are located throughout the country in areas withvarying population densities. Therefore, their sizes differ. Inpractice, a big school at provincial or district level enrolsapproximately 1,500 to 2,000 students, while a subdistrict schoolenrols approximately 450 students. However, a critical consider-ation here is the number of primary graduates compared with thenumber of graduates who continue their secondary education.

In meeting the demand for secondary schools, the suitability of thebuilding design to diverse conditions in different areas must beensured. It is also important that the architects consider constructionschedules, as the buildings must be ready for use before thebeginning of the academic year.

Since 1964 the task of developing standard school buildings has beenundertaken by the Design and Construction Division. In the initialstages, the work focused on the construction of provincial anddistrict schools. The plan was to build three to four storeys for a bigschool and two storeys for a general district school. Each floor wasallocated six to eight classrooms joined by a passageway or corridor.The building design allowed phased construction and/or extension ofthe structure to suit the needs of individual schools and their budgetallocations. The construction of multi-standard school buildingshelped ease the pressure to provide suitable designs for urgentprojects within a short period. These standard designs were used inthe construction and extension of 220 schools nationwide in 1987.

As a distinct advantage, standard building designs offered flexibility,that is, the length of the building could be easily reduced or extendedand therefore the number of classrooms could be adjusted to suit theneeds of individual schools. Being rectangular in shape, measuring7 x 9 or 8 x 8 metres, the classrooms could be transformed oradjusted to meet new requirements. For example, a classroom couldbe made into a teachers’ room or partitioned to serve as a frost-aidroom for students or as a laboratory.


However, there are potential disadvantages. One disadvantage is thepossible use of sub-standard construction materials or of poorlyskilled labour in constructing the extended sections of a building.Also, the building, when finally completed, may be lacking inarchitectural harmony. Although standardization reduces the timespent on design, it requires both architects and engineers to spendtime on follow-up work and problem-solving, addressing conditionsin the areas where the schools are located.

Another problem encountered in building extensions is thepotentially higher cost of construction as even minimum extensioncould mean constructing at least two to four rooms and providingthem with adequate cabinets or cupboards. While phasedconstruction requires a minor amount of work each year, in total itcould lead to higher building costs and therefore use up much moreof the budget.

As planned, construction of the standard building was usually donein two stages, with the second half completed only when the numberof students reached the pre-set target. This created a classroomshortage while the extension was undergoing construction. Difficultconditions are associated with a slow pace of expansion. Forexample, a slow expansion plan may delay the construction ofbuilding, Also, prolonged lapses in construction may not only causedeterioration at the joints of the structure, but may also create theimpression of an abandoned project.

The number of tables and chairs provided for both students andteachers was based on the number of rooms in each building.However, when the school expanded and certain classrooms wereconverted into special rooms, such as laboratories, the facilities werechanged. As a result, some of the original facilities were put instorage. Although wastage of this kind maybe insignificant, it couldbecome substantial when considered nationwide.

Keeping these conditions in mind, the Design and ConstructionDivision of the DGE undertook a project from 1987 to 1988, todevelop a prototype for small-sized secondary schools, to solveexisting problems and promote efficient use of these buildings. Theimplementation of this project was supported and assisted byUNESCO.

The DGE had completed 500 small-sized secondary schools at thesubdistrict level by the year 1996, in line with its policy as spelt outin the Fifth Plan.

Rationale

The project was in response to a goal of the Sixth NationalEconomic and Social Development Plan (1987-1991), to establishsmall secondary schools as the core mechanism for inducingdevelopment and prosperity in rural areas and promotingoccupational employment. Based on certain studies, it wasanticipated that such a prototype should have a 3 - 3 - 3 classroom

2


plan or a total of 9 classrooms for 450 students. This can beexpanded to a 4 -4-4 classroom plan or 12 classrooms for 600students.

Goal

The project aimed to develop a prototype design for small secondaryschools in the rural areas and to complete construction within thenext three fiscal years. The plan was for three classrooms to be builtyearly. The buildings were designed to be self-contained and eachwas provided with a library, service rooms and other basic rooms.

Recommendations made during the seminars and suggestionssubmitted by the building users through completed questionnairesprovided the working group with the necessary data to design aprototype school building within the allocated budget. The designwas subsequently submitted to and approved by the concernedauthorities. The prototype was first used in building SuthamWitthaya School, Uthai Thani Province.

The next step was to evaluate the building and to modify the designas needed so that the prototype can be improved and used as thestandard for the future.


PROTOTYPE: SUTHAM WITTHAYA SCHOOL, IUTHAI THANI PROVINCEb

The DGE selected Sutham Witthaya School, Uthai Thani as the site area was bound by Sakae Krang Hill, west by Wat Tha Sung, andfor the prototype because of its small size and limited area. In its east by Uthai Thani’s Land Reform Office.original location within the grounds of Wat Tha Sung near the townCentre, the school could not accommodate the rapid annual increase Being in the town Centre, the school had sufficient water and

in student numbers. The construction of a nine-classroom secondary electricity supply. However, the school’s water pipes had to be

school was therefore proposed in line with the goals of the Sixth extended and the old transformer improved. Although there was no

National Economic and Social Development Plan (1987-1991). The need for land falling, it was suggested that funds for ground leveling

Secondary Education Committee of Uthai Thani was enthusiastic infinding a site that suited the DGE criteria, which called for anaccessible and centrally located site to ensure that construction wassupervised and followed-up.

Site

The site, an 11 rai (17,600 sq.m.) plot of land owned by WatSangkat Ratanakiri, was in Uthai Thani’s town Centre. It did notinclude the mountain and sloped areas behind the school which couldhave been used to provide housing for the teachers and agriculturalplots or recreational gardens. The school faced Tha Chang Roadand was located about 500 metres from the town Centre. The back

along the slope should be set aside. Money saved on the foundationswas an obvious benefit.

The school had many advantages. It was centrallynearest secondary school was 3 kilometres away),supported by the temple and the community.

located (theand it was

Design Evaluation Significance

Architectural design involves a study of the building materials andthe structural system to serve as a basis for the formulation of apractical construction plan. Once construction of the building iscompleted, solutions for anticipated problems must be identified.These problems may concern the efficient use of various areas (both


inside and outside the building), as well as building stability,physical looks and economic viability. Architectural design shouldbe handled by those who are knowledgeable of relevant structuralsystems and the property of materials. At the same time, theyshould also have some artistic training.

The design should incorporate a wide range of details concerning thebuilding and the purpose for which it is being built. These designdetails are crucial to solving problems which may arise in the future.Buildings that are based on the same design are used under differentenvironmental conditions. This shows the need to ensure that thepreliminary design is of a high standard.

Sometimes in responding to specific problems, it is possible thatcertain building designs could give rise to other problems. Forexample, due to the warm weather in Thailand, many buildingdesigns allow the open flow of the wind, but in so doing they maynot be able to prevent the rain from getting in.

The architect should check and re-check the design, aware of theneed to evaluate and improve it. The evaluation should cover allaspects of the construction and should be carried out at all stages ofthe construction. The architect should study the significance of alldetails concerning the building’s dimensions, such as the width ofstairs, the distance between buildings, the use of various materials indifferent areas of the building versus the resistance from both natural

deterioration and normal wear and tear, and the visual or generalimpression of the building.

Although undertaken by field experts such as architects andengineers, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that the buildingwill be trouble-free. It is impossible to simulate actual conditions ina single design. Human knowledge has its own limitations.

Currently available testing instruments do not cover all the detailsthat need to be studied. Sunshades can prevent direct light fromhitting the building, but they do not necessarily prevent the rain fromgetting in. Depending on conditions at certain times of the day, theycan reduce the amount of glare entering the building’s interior, butthey can also absorb more natural light. The limited time set asidefor designing a building does not always permit a thorough checkingof all relevant factors. Thus, follow-up work and monitoring evenafter the building is put to use are important. Modifications shouldbe made as required. Follow-up also provides inputs for furtherstudies in building design.

Evaluation Objectives

To develop a design for a prototype building, a standard buildingdesign is modified and improved. Eventually the prototype becomesthe standard. After a period of use, the prototype is evaluated todetermine the level of users’ satisfaction and the efficiency ofbuilding use.

5


The teaching and learning activities carried out in the building, theutilization of various areas and the physical aspects of the buildingshould be in accordance with the goals set by government policy.

It is the policy of the government to construct small secondaryschools nationwide, particularly in the rural areas. The evaluationshould cover the following areas:

+ Suitability of the building with regards to teaching/learningactivities;

+ Extent to which it has been used to serve the community; and

+ Adaptability of the building design for nationwide use.

Evaluation Goals

The evaluation should also cover the following details:

+ General aspect arid size of each type of building, viewed from its suitability to serve specific teaching/learning goals;

+ Various components and details of the materials and facilities, to check their suitability to serve the purpose of the building;

+ Position of the building and its various components;

+ Extent of the building’s flexibility with regards to inter-building links; and

+ Extent to which the design makes use of readily availablematerials and skilled local labour.

As the building design is multidisciplinary in nature, the evaluationshould cover a variety of details. These are addressed by setting upsub-goals.

Evaluation Methods

To formulate a concept that would provide the basis for thedevelopment of an appropriate design, a team of architects fromDGE carried out a problem identification exercise throughquestionnaires and by brainstorming with the building’s users andother concerned parties. The design was evaluated to determinewhether it responds to relevant problems, as it is meant to do, or if itdiverts from the set goals, and if so, to what extent.

The conceptual aspect of the design should be carefully analyzed andclarified, so that it can be applied in the formulation of evaluationgoals and used as basis for a new design that responds better toactual needs.

Careful consideration of recommendations from a “concept”seminar, which appeared in a report entitled The Prototype for Small

6


Secondary Buildings* (submitted to UNESCO in 1988 by theDesign and Construction Division, Department of GeneralEducation), provided the basis for an evaluation approach in-corporating the aspects described below:

1. The basic purpose of a school is to provide education and toserve as a community education centre. School buildingsshould, therefore, be so designed that they can also serve thecommunity. The following points should be taken intoaccount:

Access.

Space for student recreation.

Lighting system.

Relevant materials and facilities.

Water supply, including drinking water and water forgeneral use.

Management of school buildings according to variousservices rendered to the community.

Management of space for public activities.

Preparations for building and property safety.

* (Published in 1990 as Educational Building Report No. 19, Innovation inConstruction of Small Secondary Schools in Thailand by UNESCO).

2. A self-contained school building should meet the needs of a3-6-9 classroom school (that is, a phased extension). Thefollowing points should be taken into account:

+ Does the existing design allow future extension?+ Does the nature of the classrooms and facilities allow

future modifications to serve new activities?+ Is the allocation for extension/modification sufficient?

3. As the school buildings are inter-linked, the design shouldtake into account the site and utilization of outdoor areas, asfor example, shaded areas for outdoor activities. Thefollowing points should be considered:

Nature of activities for which the shaded areas are used(workshop/training, teaching/learning, recreation, exer-cises, carpark, storage).Size of a suitable shaded area.Features of a desirable area.School buildings in relation to the shaded areas.Direction in which the buildings were constructed.Rotation in which the buildings were constructed.Rotation of room usage.Width of corridors and linking passageways.Suitable length of corridors and linking passageways.Effectiveness of protection against the sun and rain.Waiting areas to be used during room transfers betweenclasses.

7


+ Management of linking passageways to ensure maximumutilization.

+ Study of construction site.+ Suitable height of buildings according to actual usage

(one, one and a half or two floors).+ Building utilization as a means of alleviating environ-

mental problems.

4. Deployment of the most economical and beneficial con-struction system. The following points should be taken intoconsideration:

+ Construction methods.+ Materials.+ Building dimensions (height, etc.).+ Skilled and unskilled labour.+ Construction techniques.+ Maintenance cost.

All these issues should be taken into account when evaluating thebuilding’s suitability to specific geographical areas. They should beincorporated in the evaluation process.

The architectural team consisted of five individuals who wereselected for their experience and expertise in government schooldesign. Their inspection of the Sutham Witthaya School in UthaiThani, focusing on buildings based on the prototype design, took

into account real life conditions. Further improvements of the designwere discussed.

Although highly experienced, the team members were hindered bythe narrowness of their technical specializations. To gather supple-mentary data, they discussed with a group of teachers who wereusers of the school buildings. Prior to the team’s mission, a workinggroup was fielded to survey the users of the prototype and tocompare their responses with those of users of other types ofbuildings.

The second working group, which consisted of senior educators,started its task by formulating questionnaires for school admin-istrators, representatives of the Provincial Secondary EducationCommittee, and students and community representatives. Thesequestionnaires were tested at Niwitras Upatham School, Tha MagaDistrict, Kanjanaburi Province. After modifications, they were usedat Sutham Witthaya School, Thammaprany Witthaya SchoolKangkhoy District, Saraburi Province, Srikhotaboon School, MuangDistrict, Nakhom Phanom, and Chaiburi Witthayakhom School, ThaUthain District, Nakhom Phanom.

The data was subsequently analyzed to assess use of the building forteaching/learning purposes. This analysis, together with theevaluation of the design drawn by the architectural team, was animportant input to the development of a better design standard to suitspecific objectives.


SCOPE OF STUDY: EVALUATION CONTENTS IExpenses incurred in constructing the prototype building were paid Scope of Geographical Samplingfrom the government’s budget. Clearly, the benefits reaped cannotbe assessed in financial terms only. The buildings that were evaluated had been in use for some time.

The analysis of Sutham Witthaya School in Uthai Thani was based

The scope of the evaluation was limited to the physical attributes of on the blue print and actual conditions of the buildings. Up to the

the prototype building and how they could be modified to enhance period of the study (1989-1990), it was the only school which was

the usefulness of secondary school buildings and to solve problems built based on the prototype design.

arising from certain conditions during construction. The results ofthis study will be applied to improve school buildings and to solveproblems occurring in the rural areas.


BUILDING EVALUATION: SUITABILITY FOR TEACHING/LEARNING ACTIVITIES

The school buildings at Sutham Witthaya School in Uthai Thani had 2. The reliability of these tools was tested at Niwitrat-Upathambeen in use since 2 July 1989. A working group consisting of four School, Thamaka District, Kanjanaburi Province, with a vieweducators was sent there from 25 September to 14 October 1989 to to improving and modifying them prior to actual use.evaluate the suitability for teaching/learning activities of prototype- 3. The working group carried out its tasks at the prototype schoolbased buildings at the Wat Sutham Witthaya School and of buildings at Sutham Witthaya School, Uthai Thani, and at three otherin three other schools which were based on different designs. Thefollowing steps were taken:

schools which consisted of two-storey standard build-ings (thatis, eight classrooms). These were Thamaprang Witthaya

1. A questionnaire was constructed to be used as an assessmenttool. The questionnaire was used by three groups:

School, Kangkhoy District, Saraburi, Srikhotboon School,Muang District, Nakhon Phanom; and ChaiburiWitthavakhom School. Tha-Uthen District. Nakhom Phanom.

Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

School administrators and representatives from the.

Provincial Secondary Education Committee; 4. The data collected was analyzed by the working group. Theresults were as follows (see Annex A):

Teachers; and

Currently enrolled students in grades 7, 8, and 9. Group 1: Both the school administrator and representativesfrom the Provincial Secondary Education Committee

A separate questionnaire was distributed to: agreed that classroom size and utilization of theprototype school were better than in the other

Group 4: Community representatives engaged in different schools. As for the workshops, there was nooccupations. difference between the two types of schools.

10


Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

The teachers found that the size and use ofclassrooms in the prototype school were morebeneficial compared with the other schools. Therewas no difference in their workshops.

The students felt that the size of the prototype school,its classrooms and workshops, as well as their usage,were better, compared with the other schools.

According to the community representatives who wereinterviewed, the prototype school had not yet offeredits services to the general public, while the otherschools had already done so.

Discussion Summary

1. The prototype-based school buildings had suitably sizedclassrooms, special rooms and workshops, compared with theother schools, because their design took into account thenature and range of teaching/learning activities carried out insmall-sized secondary schools, where student enrolment isusually smaller than large schools.

2. Since the prototype school was only introduced in 1988, therewas still a shortage of equipment in special activity rooms.This impeded the flexibility required in conductingteaching/learning activities. On the contrary, other schools

3.

which were set up two years earlier had more teachingequipment and hence enjoyed more flexibility.

The prototype school had yet to offer public services. Bothschool administrators and teachers agreed that these serviceswould be made available in the near future.

In summary, the assessment, in terms of the teaching/learning aspect,revealed that the size of buildings, classrooms, special rooms andworkshops at Sutham Witthaya School, which was based on theprototype, was suitable for small-sized secondary schools.

Evaluation of Design Aspect

The physical aspect of the study was tackled by an expert group offive architects who collaborated with the school administrators. Thegroup interviewed some teachers and used their responses asguidelines for improving and modifying the prototype design,eventually making it the standard.

Using the assessment table, that was developed for use as anobservation tool, each architect checked and assessed various items asshown in the table. These items and details were derived from ananalysis of the role of school buildings in the implementation of thegovernment’s policy on educational service, and their adherence to thedesign concept. The architects were then each allowed to select thoseitems or details which they thought were worth discussing in order todevise solutions and to improve the prototype design.

11


Discussions focused on problem identification and analysis, andproposed solutions. These were presented, discussed and agreed uponat the Organizing Committee Meeting.

The problems were analyzed in terms of their causes and solutions. Apart of the discussion was devoted to identifying the scope ofproblems at Sutham Witthaya School and the means to solve them,while another part covered the best ways to modify the existing designso that it could become a standard.

Problems and Solutions

Community System and School

1. The Sutham Witthaya School operates on a 3-3-3 classroom basisand is regarded as a fully-expanded small school. However, theintroduction of upper secondary education is hindered by thelimited land area.

Causes II+ The school is situated within the town Centre wherestudent enrolment is relatively high.

* The school buildings have been designed to meet alimited student enrolment.

* The area is limited as the land is located at the footof a hill. Besides, the area is shared with otheragencies.

Solutions * Before expanding the school, careful attentionshould be paid to the needs of the community.

* The school should have legal right to the land,allowing it to introduce certain developments.

* The school site should be on the district plan.

2. Outsiders find it confusing to locate different sections of thebuilding.

C a u s e s *

*

Solutions *

*

The school has to share the area with otheragencies.

The school entrance, the passageways and publicareas are not well identified.

An architectural design which emphasizes theentrance to the building should be adopted and afriendly atmosphere created.

The position of the main gate should be changed tohelp clearly delineate public areas.

3. It is not convenient for outsiders to conduct official/business inter-actions with the school.

Causes * The office of the headmaster and the administrativerooms are located at the back of the school. Theyare difficult to access.

12


* The workshop is built in the front area next to themain entrance, thus blocking the rear building.

Solutions * An appropriate architectural design should be used.

* A public relations section should be added to thearea.

4. Maintenance and safety measures for the buildings and movableassets are inadequate.

Causes * There are no fences.

* The school shares the area with other agencies.

* There are several deserted comers.

Solutions * Private fences and roads should be built.

* A passage for security checks around the areashould be provided.

* Adequate lighting system should be providedwithin the area.

* Linking passageways between school buildingsshould be extended so as to expand public areas.

* The position and design of storage rooms forvaluable assets should be modified to ensure tightersecurity.

Area Plan System

1. As the workshop is the most accessible area from the mainentrance, workshop staff act as receptionists for other offices inthe school as well as for other agencies.

Causes *

*

Solutions **

*

The land area determines the positioning ofbuildings.The location of the main entrance and the positionsof various buildings are not well-related.

The main gate should be re-located.For building clusters in a school, the minimalwidth of the flat area should not be shorter than thelength of the longest building.School buildings should be designed so that theycan be linked in various ways. The formation anddirection of a building cluster should be flexible.

2. There is no sports field. At present, the school makes use of theprovincial stadium.

Causes * The land area is small.* The school does not have its own land.

Solutions * General school policy and the curriculum shouldindicate whether a sports field is indispensable forteaching/learning. If it is, land use must beadjusted to make room for a sports field.

13


* The school’s open area should be used tocompensate for the absence of a sports field.

3. Roads within the school are in poor condition.

Causes * The materials used are not good enough.

* Footpaths, parking spaces and lighting have notbeen adequately provided.

* The school should recognize the importance of agood road system to ensure the safety of lives andproperty, to promote public health and to providean atmosphere conducive to learning.

4. The areas for recreation and outdoor activities do not provide anatmosphere which is conducive to learning.

Cause * The area concerned is not fully utilized. Asrecreation areas, the students use the open space onthe ground floor of the two-storey buildings andthe passageways/balcony for recreation.

Solutions * Students’ use of space for relaxing and doingspecific activities should be studied.

* Suitable activities intended for such spaces shouldbe planned, e.g. to allow the students’ study space,outdoor tables and chairs should be placed underbig trees.

* Shaded areas outside the buildings should be used tobenefit teaching/learning, e.g. shaded areas shouldnot be used exclusively for parking.

* Improvement of certain areas (e.g. open fields, gardens, etc.) based on an architectural plan, should be undertaken.

School Building System

The school has three buildings.

A. The first building is a two-storey structure with classrooms andservice rooms upstairs. The ground floor is left open.

1. First Aid *Room *

*

Causes *

*

Solutions *

*

Access is difficult.There is no water for cleaning.It is inconvenient to use.

As the room is located upstairs, the students mustclimb the stairs to reach it.The room is too small.

It should be re-located downstairs.

A toilet, a sink and a cleaning area should beprovided.

14


2.

3.

4.

* The area should be extended tosections for boys and girls. Theand the students can also be givenareas.

AdministrativeRoom * Access by parents and outsiders is

provide separate Solutions * A backstage room should be constructed.

officer-in-charge * The safety system should be given adequateseparate working attention.

5. There is no room to store physical education equipment.

inconvenient. Cause * At present, the space on the ground floor is usedfor physical education exercises, but since it serves

Cause * It is located upstairs and is not accessible.

Solution * It should be re-located downstairs to allow easyaccess by the general public.

The ground floor is under-utilized.

Cause * It is sometimes used for meetings and stageactivities. However, the low ceiling restricts stageactivities.

Solutions * The distance or space between floors should beincreased.

* The height of the stage should be increased.

The sound system is inadequate.

Cause * The amplifier is at present kept upstairs, it is there-fore inconvenient to use during meetings.

as an all-purpose area, partitions are undesirablebecause they restrict storage of equipment.

Solutions * A room underneath the stairs should be renovatedand used for this purpose.

* The space underneath the stage should beconverted into a storage room.

6. The guidance room is under-utilized.

Cause * As the guidance room is in the teachers’ lounge, itis inconvenient to use.

Solutions * It should be in an area with easy access.

* Adequate space to organize exhibitions should beprovided.

* It should be located near the library so thatequipment and facilities can be shared.

15


7. The library should have a better atmosphere.

Causes * The polished cement floor contributes to an unappealing atmosphere.

* Specific rules should determine the kinds of ials to be used in construction.

Solution * The floor surface should be decorated with clean, colourful mats, tiles or coverings which induce a convivial atmosphere.

8. The walls of the room underneath the stairs permit sounds to echo.It is also badly ventilated.

Cause * The stairs were made in such a way that all thesides are solid. Lighting and ventilation areinadequate.

Solution * Lighting and air vents should be increased.

9. Passageways to link the buildings are inadequate.

Cause * The common area at the hall near the stairs on theground floor is very small. It gets crowded when alarge number of students converge there to changeclassrooms.

Solution * The linking area should be enlarged.

B.

1.

2.

C.

1.

The second building has only one storey. Its floor is raised aboutone metre above the ground. It is connected to the first buildingby an L-shaped passageway.

The area under the floor is difficult to maintain.

Cause x It is difficult to clean as the ceiling is low. It mayturn into a water-locked area in the future.

Solution * The height should be increased to maximize use.

* The area should be enclosed to control usage.

The connected buildings are too close.

Cause * The linking passageway is short and the roofs are too close to one another.

Solution * The linking passageways should be widened and lengthened. The buildings should be linked in various ways to allow flexibility.

The third building is the workshop. It has one floor constructednear the ground, its roof is higher than in normal classrooms.

Use of the co-operative room has proved inconvenient.

Cause * There is no special room for carrying out co-operative activities. As a result, a section of theworkshop is devoted for this purpose.

16


Solutions * A co-operative room should be provided outsidethe workshop.

* The purpose and use of each room for variousactivities should be studied.

2. Storage space for materials and equipment used in agriculture isinadequate.

Cause * There is no room for this purpose.

Solution * A proper way of storing such equipment should bestudied. They should not necessarily be stored inthe workshop.

3. Rain enters the building.

Cause * Rain goes through the deteriorated air-vents.* It enters the air-vents between the two sections of

the roof. (The roof was designed in two layers ofgables to release heat).

Solutions * The air-vents at the front and rear of the buildingshould be improved.

* A better method of monitoring the laying of rooftiles should be found to ensure qualityworkmanship.

4. The area is restricted.

Cause *

Solutions *

*

Designed as a multi-purpose workshop, the wholearea had to be divided to accommodate the courseson offer. This tended to create confusion duringpractical training hours.

The shaded areas should be used for practical workso as to enlarge the working space.Movable blackboards should be made available asthey will increase flexibility in dividing the area toaccommodate varying numbers of students.

Learning Facilities and other Components

1. Rain gutters have not been utilized.

Causes * Rain water flowing through the gutter has not beenstored for future use.

* There is no system to drain rain water from thegutter.

* There is no drainage system within the school area.

Solutions * A resting pond to keep rain water from the guttershould be dug.

* A drainage system using the gutters should beprovided within the area.

17


2. The walls become dirty easily.

Causes * The walls are painted with a light coloured plasticpaint which becomes dirty at the slightest touch.

Solution * At the 1.20-1.50 metre-level, oil paint should beused to make cleaning much easier.

3. It is not convenient for the students to use the toilets.

Cause * The toilets are located outdoors and are far fromthe buildings.

Solutions * The toilets should be built within the schoolbuilding to meet the needs of various people, i.e.toilet in the first-aid room for patients, another inthe teachers’ lounge, etc.

* The quantity of water required for cleaning withinthe school should be studied.

* Appropriate locations for the toilets should bedetermined.

18


SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report gives an account of the development by the DGE of aprototype for secondary schools to help promote education in therural areas. It is hoped that this prototype design, which wasdeveloped following standard design procedures, will be used as astandard design in rural areas throughout the country. Withassistance from UNESCO, the Design Division conducted a surveyto gather relevant data and useful information. Using governmentfunds, the final design was constructed as a prototype at SuthamWitthaya School, Uthai Thani Province.

This prototype had been in use for a period of time when anevaluation was undertaken. The findings were used to furtherimprove the original design so that it could serve as a standarddesign later on.

The assessment focused on the physical aspect of the prototype andwas conducted in two stages. Firstly, the prototype users were askedto rate their satisfaction with the way the prototype building suitedteaching/learning activities. Secondly, the evaluation tackled theefficiency by which the prototype responded to the original conceptof the design. The results are summarized as follows:

Evaluation of Teaching/Learning Aspects

Discussions based on the completed questionnaires from represen-tatives of administrators, teachers and students yielded the followingresults.

+ The prototype, which had better-sized classrooms, specialrooms and workshops, compared with the conventionalstandard type buildings, satisfied the teaching needs of smallsecondary schools in rural areas.

+ Having been established recently, the prototype was short of,if not lacking, teaching facilities. It was not as flexible as itshould be, nor was it ready to render public service.

Evaluation of the Design Aspect

This task was conducted by another working group consisting ofexperienced architects. They interviewed teachers and admin-istrators. Their discussions confirmed that the classrooms, specialrooms and workshop in the prototype building at Sutham WitthayaSchool were suitably sized for teaching/learning activities in small

19


secondary schools. These coincided with the evaluation results ofthe first working group.

The architects’ working group proposed the following actions so thatthe prototype can become the standard design in the future.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Make sure that only a small sized school is to be built withinthe allocated area.

The school should have its own private area with adequateflat land around it to meet certain needs and specifications.The immediate environment determines the size of the schoolarea. For instance, if a school is located near a publicstadium, it may have to be smaller than the size originallyplanned.

Service offices, such as the administrative section, should bere-located to areas with easy access to facilitate interactionswith outsiders.

The building layout should have an uncluttered look andshould allow for a small path around the building formaintenance and security purposes.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Internal traffic and transportation arrangements should beadequately organized to ensure convenience and security.

Recreational and multi-activity areas should be suitablyprovided inside and outside the building.

The open space on the ground floor of a two-storey buildingshould not be enclosed by walls.

There should be a special room for storing expensiveequipment, such as scientific tools and musical instruments.

Materials should be used properly in order to enhance theteaching/learning environment, while promoting health andhygiene.

10. The building should be efficiently utilized, as for example,by rotating the use of classrooms.

11. Some variety should be incorporated in the design ofpassageways to link buildings.

12. Detailed building specifications should suit climaticconditions and the availability of skilled local labour.

20


Schedule of accommodation

1. Classroom building

6 classrooms 403.2 sq.m.

Principal and assistant 32 sq .m.

Administration 124.8 sq.m.

Guidance and first aid 32 sq .m.

Teacher room 64 sq.m.

Library 124.8 sq.m.

Laboratory 96 sq.m.

Multi-purpose room 6 4 s q . m

Audio-visual lab 96 sq.m.

Circulation and toilets 3 3 4 . 4 s q . m .

Total area 1,371.2

Estimated cost: US$120 per US$164,544sq.m.

2. Cafeteria (ground floor) 499.2 sq.m.

I


3. Workshop 240 sq .m.


Total area 2,110.4 sq.m.

Area per student 4.69 sq.m.

Cost of buildings 1 + 2 + 3 = US$223,296

Approximate total cost US$223,000

23


AERIAL VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN

LOOKING THROUGH OPEN COURT


Some Problems:

The linking area is very small, so it becomescrowded when a large number of students haveto change classrooms.

25


PROTOTYPE II


29


PROTOTYPE II

Walkway and Exhibition 290 sq.m.I

Social Study 125 sq.m.

Teacher 125 sq.m.

Admin. 125 sq.m.

Co-operative 160 sq.m.

5 Classrooms 400 sq.m.

Storage 64 sq.m.

Toilet 64 sq.m.

Library 125 sq.m.

Lab. 128 sq.m.

Audio Visual 96 sq.m.

Guidance 32 sq.m.

Stair and Corridor 168 sq.m.

Workshop 240 sq.m.

Auditorium 500 sq.m.

TOTAL 2,642 sq.m.

Area per Student 4.89 sq.m.

Note : Since building costs have gone up,this data may be compared to thePROTOTYPE I in floor area only.

30


Opt

ical

Cha

ract

er R

ecog

nitio

n (O

CR

) do

cum

ent.

WA

RN

ING

! Spe

lling

err

ors

mig

ht s

ubsi

st. I

n or

der

to a

cces

sto

the

orig

inal

doc

umen

t in

imag

e fo

rm, c

lick

on "

Orig

inal

" bu

tton

on 1

st p

age.

MODERN CLASSROOM CONCEPT

33


GUID

PLAN :

ISOMETRIC

PRINCIPAL AND ADMINISTRATION ROOM

34


CO-OPERATIVE ROOM

35


GENERAL SCIENCE LABORATORY

37


GENERAL SCIENCE LABORATORY AND TEACHERS’ ROOM

38


TEACHERS ROOM FOR SCIENCE LABORATORY

39


24

12,2632394752546064A72

PLANSCALE 1:200

FURNITURE LIST

FILING CABINET 4 DRAWERS

TEACHER’S DESK AND CHAIRSTOOLSPLANNING DESKTOOL CABINET (PANEL)SHOP BENCHBOOK CABINETEXPERIMENTAL BENCHGAS-ARC WELDING BENCHSTEEL CUPBOARD

C

EFGHI

ABCD

METAL

DRILL PRESS HP.

SOLDERING FURNACESHEARFOOTSQUARESTAKE PLATE WITH STAKEBOX AND PAN BRAKESLIP ROLLER

WOODDRILL PRESS HP.GRINDER HP.WOODLATHE HP.SANDER

H

SECTIONSCALE 1:00

GENERAL WORKSHOP

40


BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNESCO. EB. Digest 19: Innovation in Construction of Small Secondary Schools in Thailand, Bangkok, 1990.

General Education Department. Secondary School Standards, Bangkok, 1981 (Published in Thai).

McGraw-Hill. Time Saver Standards, New York, 1954.

General Education Department. Secondary School Planning, Bangkok, 1989 (Published in Thai).

Government of Thailand. Building Code for Schools, Bangkok, 1971.

General Education Department. Summary of School Enrolment, Bangkok, 1988.

General Education Department. Statistical Yearbook of Secondary Education, Bangkok, 1989.

Charanyanond, K. Problems of IBRD Secondary School Project. General Education Department, 1983 (Published in Thai).

Neufert, E. Architect Data. Halsted Press, N. Y., 1980.

41


ANNEXES


Annex A

Questionnaires 1-3 the same questionnaire was sent to: (1) School administrators and the representatives of the Provincial EducationCommittee (2) Teachers and (3) Students.

Item Prototype N = 2 Non-prototype N = 5

Good Rather Good Fair To be Improved Good Rather Good Fair To be Improved

School building

a. Classrooms1. Students, desks and chairs2. Organization of teaching activities

b. Size and utilization of multi-purpose room

c. Library1. Size2. Facilities3. Utilization

d. Science-laboratory1. Size2. Facilities3. Utilization

e.. Audio-room1. Size2. Facilities3. Utilization

f. Guidance room1. Size2. Facilities3. Utilization

45


Prototype N = 2

g.1.2. 3.

h.1.2-.3.

i.1.2.3.

j.1.2.3.

k.1.2.3.

l.1.2.3.

m.

First-aid roomSizeFacilitiesUtilization

Administration roomSizeFacilitiesUtilization

Teachers’roomSizeFacilitiesUtilization

Principal’s roomSizeFacilitiesUtilization

Principal’s Assistant’s roomSizeFacilitiesUtilization

Cafeteria-cum-auditoriumSizeFacilitiesUtilization

Workshop1. Size2. Facilities3. Utilization

Good

Prototype N = 2

Rather Good Fair To be Improved Good

Non-prototype N = 5

Rather Good Fair To be Improved

4 6


Questionnaire 4 (To community representatives)

Prototype N = 9 Non-prototype N = 21Item

. .

Yes No Yes

Public utilization of classrooms1.1 Adult education classes1.2 Special interest classes

Public utilization of cafeteria-cum-auditorium2.1 Community assemblies2.2 Wedding functions2.3 Local festivals2.4 Village/community meetings2.5 Subdistrict council meetings

Public utilization of workshop3.1 Occupational practices3.2 Tools and instrument repair3.3 Preparation for materials during

religious activities, festivals, weddings

No

47


Group A

Group B

Report prepared by

Furniture layout

Annex B

PROJECT TASK

Evaluation of architectural aspects

Mr. Kriangsak CharanyanondMr. Uthij BenchanuwatMr. Paiboon CharoensukMrs. Payoa BuachanMr. Tienchai ChantarawanMr. Ransan Panyapomwittaya

Evaluation of functional aspects

Mr. Wisit DuangsongMr. Pradit TuptongMr. Supit KamsakulMrs. Yupin Sinturawes

Mr. Kriangsak CharanyanondMr. Tienchai Chantarawan

Mr. Tangai Komolsai

48


evaluation of the small secondary schools project in...

Documents