“Under the previous government, we were seeing fancy, architecturally designed, multi-storey classrooms that were great for the schools that were getting them but, actually, there were a whole lot of other schools that were missing out because we weren’t getting good value for money.” Minister of Education Erica Stanford’s “fancy” put-down of school architecture, at a press conference in early October, focused a lot of the blame for the country’s school building funding shortfall on the shoulders of architects.

Her solution is to use standardised design and more offsite-manufactured classrooms from companies such as Niche Modular and Builtsmart. “There is a huge, yawning gulf between architecturally designed, bespoke buildings and offsite-manufactured builds and repeatable designs,” says Stanford, who wants to see “the end of these fancy, architecturally designed, expensive, bespoke classrooms.”

Stanford was releasing the findings of the Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into School Property begun earlier this year and headed by former National Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully. One of its key findings was “a significant and unsustainable gap between expectations and funding available for delivery”, with $6.5 billion in funding required to complete the 488 projects in the Ministry’s capital works pipeline. The inquiry said only 153 of these projects are fully funded, “requiring $2.8 billion of additional capital funding and difficult decisions regarding future priorities”. It’s the perfect excuse for more cost-cutting, no doubt to help the government fund its tax cuts, with no mention made of allocating more funding to meet this shortfall and to continue promoting high-quality school design to enhance student learning.

The report described the Ministry’s handling of its $30-billion property portfolio, comprising 2117 state schools and more than 16,000 school buildings, as bureaucratic and inefficient. It was also highly critical of architects, saying their role in the system has to change.

Architects were singled out for scope creep and contributing to higher build costs. “For many years, architects appointed to Ministry-led projects have shown a tendency to produce designs that are overscoped or over-specified, and frontline property staff do not always have the technical knowledge or ability to challenge these practices or apply the right level of scrutiny early in the process,” said the report. “The absence of an identifiable budget holder function has contributed to outcomes that represent poor value for money.” In other words, bespoke designs that are too flash or fancy and exceed “what is necessary for simple, functional and fit-for- purpose facilities”.

There was, however, a begrudging acknowledgement that sometimes architects do a good job: “Schools have been engaged in producing detailed briefs on their aspirations and pedagogical approaches during planning and design,” said the report. “Some new builds based on a bespoke design carefully reflect the needs or aspirations of their schools and perform well in many respects.” Bravo architects!

Good design can have value in delivering buildings that meet the pedagogical and aspirational needs of schools but, in this government’s view, such value is overrated. The inquiry also heard that bespoke or high-specification designs “can create unexpected operational issues, as well as a significant ongoing maintenance burden for schools” — an approach that “repeatedly set high expectations that could not be met”.

The report found that, even where standardised design is used, there can still be “significant intervention or bespoke elements which add time and cost to the project and prevent the Ministry from realising efficiencies or economies of scale”.

All of the above reaches a disheartening conclusion for architects: “There is a clear desire among principals and boards we spoke to for simple, functional, and healthy facilities rather than award-winning architecture.”

The effect of this on school design is depressing. Rather than striving for excellence in school architecture, as seen in the many award-winning school projects featured in this magazine (Architecture NZ), Stanford is happy with second best.

Answering questions in Parliament in February about the Inquiry, Stanford said she had heard aspects of school designs were “gold-bricked” and “a silver standard will more than adequately meet education requirements while at the same time delivering better value for the taxpayer.”

Stanford’s vision for our schools is decidedly no-frills utilitarian: standardised, repeatable designs with classrooms meeting bare-minimum criteria — buildings must be functional, warm, dry and safe. One size fits all.

It’s an approach that will widen the design gap between private and public schools. It remains to be seen how the government’s proposed re-introduction of charter schools, which can operate independently from the state school system, fits into this new design austerity.

Portacom Building Solutions is an Offsite Manufactured Buildings (OMBs) company working with the Ministry of Education to fulfil Aotearoa’s classroom needs. Its Hutt Valley High School project in the video below, an example of the current government’s preferred approach.

The use of more prefabricated building, shown to cost 14.8 per cent less than traditional builds, is undoubtedly good for reducing school building costs. But, while the funding shortfall clearly shows Ministry of Education building processes badly need an overhaul, it seems decidedly lacking in ambition and vision to say that our schools should not aspire to use smart, innovative design to address their individual, localised educational needs.

If we must have uniform, repeatable designs, perhaps, at the very least, Stanford would consider engaging some “fancy” architects to design them. Perhaps they could be award winning. Of course, it’s important to get value for money but it depends on what you value.