There’s an interesting debate — let’s hope it’s a debate — brewing in Massachusetts regarding school construction. It’s been prompted by ballooning costs for the state’s most expensive school building ever: the Newton North High School, for which the price tag is $192.5-million, according to The Boston Globe. In response, Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy Cahill is pushing for standardized school designs.

Recently, the Globe explained Cahill’s pilot school-prototype program this way: “Cahill hopes the program will eliminate one-upmanship, which at times has prompted a spate of field houses, swimming pools, and other expensive perks.”

I suppose communities compete to attract residents just as colleges and universities strive to attract students and faculty. So one could imagine that similar standardization mandates for state-college and state-university systems might not be far away.

Does Mr. Cahill’s proposal demonstrate wise leadership, a corralling of the out-of-control wish lists of school boards, building committees, and neighborhood advocacy groups? Or does it demonstrate a frightening naiveté about all that needs to be taken into account in the design of sophisticated educational facilities? After all, we’re not talking about putting up a Denny’s, a Walgreens, or a Marriott. Our cities and towns are chock full of fiscally prudent prototype-based facilities that, more often than not, sap the life out of our neighborhoods. But at what price is tailor-made design worthwhile?

As the Globe describes the “model schools” selected for the pilot program, I’m reminded of Gwendolyn Wright’s description of how the Federal Housing Administration at one time approved and backed loans for only a limited range of house styles: “Even noted architects like Frank Lloyd Wright had their work rejected because of a low rating in the ‘Adjustment for Conformity’ category.”

Despite my excitement over the Bird’s Nest in my last post, I don’t mean to suggest that every educational facility needs to be designed by a latter-day Frank Lloyd Wright, or by Herzog and deMeuron. But it’s terrifying to think that someone in a position like Mr. Cahill’s might limit public construction to a narrow range of conservative off-the-shelf designs the same way the FHA once limited loans to houses of “Colonial Revival, Cape Cod, Tudor, Spanish, or a safe contemporary like the ranch.” —Gretchen Schneider

Gretchen Schneider, August’s Buildings & Grounds guest blogger, taught architecture at Smith College before opening her own practice in Boston. You can read her previous posts here and here.