ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN CHICAGO by John Joseph McNicholas Ir. The purpose of this study was the development of recommended educational criteria for new elementary school buildings in Chicago. The Board of Education in the city of Chicago has committed itself to the goal of a quality education for all its students. In a period of in- creasing enrollments, resulting from rising birth rates, plus inmigration of public school patrons to the city, this district must obviously expend large sums of money in order to maintain, improve, and enhance its instructional program. Its ability to provide one of the tools of instruc- tion, an adequate school plant, is further compromised by a number of obsolescent school houses. The problem? How do we plan, design, and construct quality school buildings which will allow and support quality education? An analysis was made of thirty-seven new elementary schools in Chicago whose contracts were awarded between January 1, 1954 and December 31, 1958. This study examined the educational adequacy and the unit costs of each building. The literature relating to elementary school plant planning was reviewed, so that the most current and most promising practices in this John Joseph McNicholas Ir. field could be evaluated. An independent and experienced school plant specialist visited the school buildings and rated each on an educational adequacy scale specifically designed for this school district. Educational and architectural planners with experience in urban school districts contributed their suggestions for the improvement of school plant planning procedures. The aid and assistance of knowledge- able educational and administrative staff members was enlisted. A report, Elementary Education in the Chicago Public Schools,1 was used as a guideline statement in this study's view of the elementary school program and its objectives. When the collection of these data was completed, demonstrable differences in unit costs among the buildings were noted. Significant variations in the total educational adequacy ratings of the various build- ings were cited. The consensus reached by consultants to the study centered upon provision of fuller and more detailed educational specifica tions. These criteria should aid the district in enhancing the adequacy of school plants to be constructed, while controlling the cost in a more systematic, objective fashion. The development of recommended educa- tional criteria for planning new elementary school buildings in Chicago ensued. The recommendations of the study focused upon ways in which Chicago and other urban school districts might utilize the data and criteria of this study. The methodology and materials of such a study should be John Joseph McNicholas Ir. useful to any school district in its evaluation of past and future building programs. The collection of data relative to educational adequacy and financial cost suggests an analysis of adequacy-cost relationships. This could be a fruitful area for future research and study. The final recommendation described a process of planning whereby a school district using the educational criteria developed might improve and enhance the effectiveness of its school plants. This recommendation was based on the premise that better buildings would be constructed if those people who are most intimately involved in the teaching-learning situation coniributed their ideas as part of the school plant planning process. 1Chicago Board of Education, Elementary Education in the Chicago Public Schools, A Report Prepared by the Elementary Committee (Chicago: Chicago Board of Education, 1959) . THE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN CHICAGO by John Joseph McNicholas Jr. A.Thesis Submitted to Michigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 1961 / , 4" d: i I! I . // I" a»? .; (x \“3 mix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the preparation of this thesis the writer has ‘been most fortunate in having had a close professional associa- tion with his colleagues in the Chicago Board of Education and with staff members of the College of Education at Michigan State university. .A special note of thanks is extended to Dr. Benjamin C. Willis, General Superintendent of Schools in Chicago, for his encouragement, assistance, and cooperation in this under- taking. The members of the writer's doctoral committee, Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Dr. John X. Jamrich, and Dr. Charles R. Adrian, have been stimulating teachers and cordial friends. The writer is indebted particularly to Dr. Donald J. Leu, chairman of the doctoral committee. His endless patience, his unselfish attention, and his professional advice will long be remembered. The writer would be remiss if he did not mention his gratitude to his parents who have been a constant source of inspiration and assistance. These acknowledgments would not be complete if the writer did not express his appreciation to his wife, Mary Margaret, for her generous understanding, and to his children, Martha, Sean, Michael, and Mary for their forbearance. They made a “hardship year" easy. .TABLE OF CONTENTS (:HAPTER I. II. III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE NEED FOR EDUCATIONAL CRITERIA IN CHICAGO Educational Adequacy Rating of School Plants Staff Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . Consultants' Comments . . . . . . . . Cost Data for School Plants . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDED EDUCATIONAL CRITERIA . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Objectives and Goals of Elementary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Principles of Design . . . . . Program of Requirements . . . . . . . Kindergarten Room . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 19 22 24 41 45 46 50 51 54 59 64 76 78 CHAPTER PAGE Primary Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Classrooms for the Intermediate Grades . . . . . . 94 Instructional Materials Center . . . . . . . . . .102 .Administrative Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Adjustment Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Health Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 Multi-Purpose Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Elementary Playroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 Educational Storage Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . .137 Teachers' Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 Toilet Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144 Custodial Areas and Mechanical Areas . . . . . . .149 Circulation Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 Recommended Illumination Criteria . . . . . . . .157 Concerning Beauty in Building . . . . . . . . . .166 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . .169 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181 APPENDH O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .196 LIST OF FIGURES Educational Adequacy Rating Total Score . Educational Adequacy Rating Classrooms . Educational Adequacy Rating Kindergartens Educational Adequacy Rating Special Rooms Educational Adequacy Rating Areas 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ‘0 O O 0 General Areas Educational Adequacy Rating Percentage of Building Area Utilized for Educational Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . Square Foot Per Pupil - Total Building Area Size of Classroom (Square Foot) . . . . . . Administrative PAGE . 33 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Capital Outlay Expenditures - Chicago Board of Education - 1954-1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. Public School Enrollments - Chicago Board Of Education - 1954-1958 0 o o o o o o o o o o 3 CHAPTER ONE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction School plant planning in America today is big business. Millions of dollars are being expended annually to provide adequate educational facilities for children and youth. This school construction is heavily concentrated in the burgeoning standard metropolitan areas of our country.' Demographers have identified these as the loci of increasing concentrations of population. The Board of Education in the City of Chicago invested a total of $104,396,256.00 in site acquisition, modernization of obsolete facilities, and construction of badly needed new schools during the years 1954 through 1958. The following table indicates the upward trend of these expenditures: Table Onel Capital Outlay Expenditures Chicago Board of Education 1954-1958 School Site Permanent & Condemnations New Bldgs. Improvements vTotal Plant Egg; 4E§pense & Additions & Equipment Additions 1954 $ 648,117 $ 7,517,326 $ 3,511,440 $ 11,676,883 1955 935,256 13,280,731 3,771,178 17,987,115 1956 1,895,671 14,648,634 4,242,702 20,787,007 1957 3,078,815 19,843,579 4,150,986 27,073,380 1958 3,167,159 20,069,504 3,635,158 26,871,821 TOTAL $9,725,018 $75,359,774 $19,311,464 $104,396,256 The Problem Mushrooming school enrollments are the most dramatic illustration of our reasons for concern. Table Two illus- trates the increased public school enrollment for the years 1954 through 1958 in the City of Chicago. 1Chicago Board of Education, Annual Audited Financial Report, (Chicago: Chicago Board of Education, 1958). Table Two2 Public School Enrollments Chicago Board of Education 1954-1958 X§§£_ Enrollment Increase 1954 392,501 -—- 1955 405,078 12,577 1956 417,373 12,295 1957 431,347 13,974 1958 445,373 14,026 This increasing membership in our schools, however, is but a part of the problem. A backlog of needed new facilities due to the hiatus in construction during the depression and ‘World war II magnifies the problem. Obsolescence of buildings erected prior to 1900, highly mobile populations, and continuing efforts to improve educational programs for Chicago's Children and youth guarantee that the dollar volume of school construc- tion will increase during the years ahead: Because of the unprecedented magnitude of its present and proposed building program the Chicago Board of Education 2Chicago Board of Education, Annual Audited Financial Reports, (Chicago: Chicago Board of Education, 1954-1958). has recently initiated the employment of private architects for selected school projects to augment its own Bureau of .Architecture. The results of this Change in policy have been quickly apparent in the upgrading of new buildings Constructed. However, inspection of these schools also reveals inadequacies and inconsistencies in school plant planning. There are demonstrable differences in quality and unit costs between buildings of similar size or like budgets. These differences will be detailed in a later Chapter of this study. It is the writer's firm conviction that educational criteria can be developed for a large City school district such as the Board of Education of the City of Chicago; it is also his con- sidered opinion that the use of such criteria will help to remedy the inadequacies and resolve the inconsistencies now present in school plant planning practices in Chicago. These specifications might then serve as guidelines for Bureau of Architecture personnel as well as private architects who are commissioned to design buildings for Chicago's elementary school population. Delimitations 2£_the §tudy The validity of any study is dependent upon the removal of as many variables as is possible. The following delimitations of this study will make it easier to focus our attention sharply on the problem to be considered. These delimitations will also help us to avoid the random study approach which has a tendency to blur conclusions and to blunt recommendations. ‘We propose to develop educational criteria for the elementary school buildings which the Board of Education in the City of Chicago will construct. We are not interested in' secondary schools or institutions of higher education at this time. Our efforts will be concentrated on the complex urban aggregate known as Chicago. Our conclusions and recommendations may have applicability for other large metropolitan areas, but 'we do not seek this. Definition gf_gg£m§_ The terms which should be defined for the purposes of this study are the following: 1) educational criteria 2) elementary school 3) educational adequacy The term, educational criteria, refers to performance standards or specifications which are developed by a school plant planner. These educational criteria provide an architect with the essential educational information concerning a school building he must have to understand the architectural problem to be solved. These specifications should enable the architect to gain a sound understanding of the activities to be carried /o-“ A. l U04 n"‘ —. div- ....l v.‘- V ‘. - .I an: A fi--‘ ‘“Q. m. '( l I): (I! on in the building as a whole and in each part. The second term, elementary school, is used here to describe the administrative organization in our instructional system which includes kindergarten plus grades one through eight--or less. The organizational pattern in Chicago's schools is KG-B, 9-12, and 13-14. Some upper grade centers, serving seventh and eighth graders only, have been established in the last few years. Obviously the contributing schools to these centers are organized from kindergarten through the sixth grade. This applies to new buildings as well as Old. Occasionally the Chicago Board of Education has authorized the construction of neighborhood primary units (KG-2, KG-3, KG-4). All of the above mentioned organizations (KG—8, KG-6, KG-2, KG-3, KG-4) are present in the elementary schools under consideration. The last term, educational adequacy, is here defined as a school building's potential in facilitating the following: 1. present instructional activities 2. the attainment of desirable goals in instruction 3. changes or innovations in the educational program 4. the enhancement of instructional quality through the provision of appropriate spaces Review Q§_the Literature Since this study proposes to develop educational criteria my 1 I. .c- .a- nu n~a no. nu on . o .\. 1' o . s Q .- ~ \ ., ‘ p \ \ Jr 1‘ \o. . . i \ I for new elementary schools in the City of Chicago, the writer has focused his attention on current books, periodicals, and publications concerned with effective school plant planning. The wellsprings of this literature have resided in two disci— plines -- architecture and education. Alexander3 illustrates the architectural planner's point of view. He asserts that cooperative planning of a school facility is "the systematic seed from.which good buildings grow”. Herrick, McLeary, Clapp, and Bogner4 delineate the éducational planner's position in this important area as follows: Careful and thorough educational planning, as well as good architectural planning is essential if the completed structure is to be a helpful tool, rather than a hindrance, to the many generations of teachers and pupils who will use it. The planning principle, that form should follow func- tion, is firmly established in the school plant planning 5 literature. Dave Chapman remarks: "The design of a school, its spaces and its facilities must permit and support the educational function." 3RObert E. Alexander, "An Architect Views the Client's Role in School Building Planning,” American School and Uhivege 4John H. Herrick, Ralph D. McLeary, Wilfred S. Clapp and walter J. Bogner, From School Program to School Plant (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956), p. 104. 5Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., Design for ETV Planning for Schools with Television (New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., 1960), p, 5, And yet many times architects receive little or no information concerning the activities that will take place in a building they are asked to design. Most architects are not educational philosophers. Some architects are not aware of the differences between communities which dictate adjust- ments and modifications of the educational program for diverse school districts. Educational criteria given to architects range from very limited documents of one or two pages, which merely enumerate the educational spaces required, to compre- hensive and detailed statements which set forth fully the objectives sought, enumerate the functions to be housed, state how many and what kind of accommodations are needed for these functions, and describe all necessary relationships among them. The AASA School Building Commission6 has stated its belief concerning educational specifications as follows: There appears to be a growing feeling on the part of both educators and architects alike that the educational specifications should be a complete and precise statement of the educational program in terms understandable to all. It should represent a point of departure from which the architect can develop his design, working drawings, specifications, and other technical documents with full assurance that no essential requirement will be overlooked. A statement of the educational criteria is one of the three major steps in the creation of a new school building 6AASA School Building Commission, Planning America's School Building§ (Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1960), p. 171. fl /" according to N. L. Engelhardt, N. L. Engelhardt, Jr., and Stanton Leggett.7 The other two important steps are the plans and specifications of the architect, and the construction of the building. Good educational planning should promote economy. Herrick, et. a1.8 maintain this without equivocation. The maximum educational return for each dollar spent (which is a sound definition of economy) can best be assured by designing a building which fits the needs of the school program. If this is done, there will be the maximum educational benefit from each constructional dollar spent and from each dollar devoted to staffing and operating the building throughout its years of service. If educational criteria are inadequately stated, the wisest expenditure of the public dollar will be difficult to achieve. Herrick et. al.9 have suggested another forceful rea- son for educational criteria. Quite apart from the need for a written record, the volume of detailed information and its interrela- tedness make it highly desirable, if not essential, that the major educational planning decisions be reduced to writing. 7N. L. Engelhardt, N. L. Engelhardt Jr., and Stanton Leggett, §ghool7Planning and Building Handbook (New York: F. W. Dodge Corp., 1956), p. 73. 8JOhn H. Herrick, Ralph D. McLeary, Wilfred J. Clapp, and‘Walter J. Bogner, Egom School Program to School Plant (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956), p. 107. 91bid., p. 127. . ... .H ,. ... ...-.. ..... ..~ ..~ .... ...x \ .....\.... . _ 10 The National Council on Schoolhouse Construction,lo the professional association of school plant planners in this hemi- sphere, have taken the position that development of educational criteria are the sine qua non of prudent educational planning. The educational specifications should be in written form, should include a description of the program and its underlying philosophy, a list of the facilities needed including equipment, statements with respect to any special needs as to locations of different types of facilities, and descriptions of any special features required in each. It is also helpful to the architect if the educational specifica- tions describe the nature of the activities to be accommodated by the plant as a whole as well as each type of facility, since such descriptions enable him to explore more fully the various ways of achieving the desired results. If we believe, as the writer does, that cooperative planning is necessary and that written specifications facilitate such planning, we may then move to a consideration of that portion of the literature which concerns itself with some of the major and many of the minor facets of educational planning. The term, educational planning, is limited to planning ”which is done to produce a statement of the facilities and qualities that a particular building should include."11 This planning 10National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Guide for Planning School Plants (Nashville: National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, 1958), pp. 8-9. 11John H. Herrick, Ralph D. McLeary, Wilfred J. Clapp, and Walter Bogner, From School Program to School Plant (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956), p. 104. 11 may be done by one or more people. Archibald B. Shaw and Lawrence B. Perkins12 have critically examined a school in which they were, respectively, educational planner and archi- tectural planner; they believe this building (Heathcote Ele- mentary School in Scarsdale, New York) may be as forward- looking as Crow Island Elementary School was in the forties. The “Educational Specifications for Elementary Schools"13 of the Denver Public Schools, Denver, Colorado, have been reviewed. This is a very detailed statement of the desires of this school district in relation to the elementary school plant. It is interesting to note in this document that standard floor plans are provided fOr such spaces as the kindergarten, the library, the administrative unit, et. al. The ”Report of the Educational Program Planning Work- shopl4 (Elementary Committee) of the Detroit Board of Education, Detroit, Michigan, has been studied. This workshop produced a definitive, professional statement of what the Detroit educa- tional philosophy and program should be for the years ahead. 12Archibald B. Shaw and Lawrence B. Perkins, "Planning an Elementary School," School Executive (July, 1954), p. 58. 13Denver Public Schools, "Educational Specifications for Elementary Schools" (Denver, Colorado: mimeographed), Dec., 1955. 14Detroit Board of Education, ”Reports of the Educational Program Planning WOrkshop (Elementary Committee)" (Detroit, Michigan: ,mimeographed), Summer, 1959. ‘4 “T In ("x . ‘ A-.‘ .- .. .... V‘ . v "I -- 4..v‘. . n... . o... 4 . u q. o - . 5.. v‘. .I «v .— .., -‘- I \ . u i .I Q.‘ .4 \\ '4'“ o.‘ ‘u. .. ‘. 5. 5" 12 .As a contrast to the Denver standards we discover here an emphasis on performance specifications for spaces in Detroit's elementary schools. Planning,Elementary,SChools James J. Redmond,15 Superintendent of Schools, New Orleans, Louisiana, has suggested an ingenious design to cope with an urban school district's problem of space. He describes an elementary school building which was constructed on stilts in order that valuable play area might be conserved on a very small site. John G. Fischerl6 has written a very thought-provoking article on the school plant planning problems of a large metropolis. He combines this with some fruitful suggestions for their solution. N. L. Engelhardt, Jr.17 has suggested that we enlarge certain academic spaces in order to effect better learning situations. John Lyon Reid18 has suggested that function, economy, and maintenance should not be the sole 15James J. Redmond, ”Thomy Lafou--The School on Stilts" American School and University (Vol. 27), pp. 161-164. 16JOhn G. Fischer, "Challenge Of the Big City," American School and University (Vol. 1, 1956-57), pp. 57-62. 17N. L. Engelhardt, Jr., "Laboratories for Learning," School,Executive (Nov. 1954), pp. 63-66. 18John Lyon Reid, "Human Values in School Architecture," American School and University (Vol. 27), pp. 113-116. /\ \./ ".9 ‘V .- .al". '"‘.va .‘.. .,. I ,.I' ‘2'. "uu [I (II —. .- I‘- u I..v .- u \ 'v 13 criteria in school building design. He believes that our schools should provide the learning environment to help students cope with the problems of every day life. PlanniggpAids Karl T. Hereford19 and Donald J. Leu have analyzed the part educational consultants have taken in school plant planning. This study was based upon a national survey. The staff20 of .Architectural Record has initiated a statement that illustrates the improved quality in both installations when school districts ‘work cooperatively with park districts. The purpose of long range school building and site programs has been examined by W} W. Theisen.21 He maintains that the objective is not solely to indicate what will be needed in the form Of facilities, but also to develop public understanding and willingness to support the program. Maintenance and Operation John M. Hickey22 and Arthur P. Logan have described how 19Karl. T. Hereford and Donald J. Leu, "The Role of the Educational Consultant," School Executive (January, 1956), PP. 99-100. 20Staff, ”School Board and Park Board Cooperate," Architectural Record (July, 1954), pp. 123-127. 21W. W. Theisen, ”Long Range Planning for School Plant," Nation's Schools (July, 1956), pp. 64-69. 22John M. Hickey and Arthur P. Logan, "A Trouble-Free School,” American School Board Journa1_(Dec., 1957), pp. 39-40. \_,/ .o‘ .v' ..1‘ u t a s \ 14 the careful selection of durable and maintenance free materials has eased the problems of repair and maintenance for the school administrator. RObert J. Quinn,23 fire commissioner of Chicago, has made the following suggestions to school plant planners: 1. All new buildings Should be fire resistive. 2. All new buildings should have fire wall and door cut-offs. He has particularly emphasized in this article the importance of good housekeeping practices. Physical Education Dana P. Whitmer24 and C. Henry Haberkorn have emphasized the varied and different ways in which Children and adults are benefited through the erection of a sizable activity area in every school. However, the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction25 has warned school planners that an unfortunate self-deception has been indulged in the design of multipurpose facilities in that cer- tain activities are short-Changed. They have further stated, 23RObert J. Quinn, "What Must Be Done for Fire Safety?" American School Board Journal (March, 1959), pp. 32-34. 24Dana P. Whitmer and C. Henry Haberkorn, ”Multipurpose Room in Every School," Nation's Schools (March, 1959), pp. 90-93. 25National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Guide for Planning School Plants (Nashville, Tennessee: Peabody College, 1958), p. 56. 15 The omission of certain activities should be the result of deliberate decision, not an unhappy disggvery after it is too late to do anything about it. Construction Techniques 27 John J. Delaney has reviewed the dynamic school build- ing program of Chicago's Board of Education. Dan S. Martin28 has described a comprehensive approach to planning which has paid off handsomely in New Orleans in speedier and more economi— cal school construction. The staff29 of Architectural Record has submitted a resume of those cumulative economies possible in school plant construction. It is based on the research report of the State Education Department, the University of the State of New York, Albany, 1958. Pictorial presentations of economical schoOl buildings are included. Decoration and Color Faber Birren30 has stated that color can be a happy 26Ibid., p. 56. 27John J. Delaney, "A Multi-Million Dollar School Build- ing Program," American School Board Journal (August, 1955), PP. 21 and 63. 28Dan S. Martin, ”Schoolhouse Planning in New Orleans," School Executive (October, 1954), pp. 73-76. 29Staff, ”Schools--A Realistic Approach to Economy True,” Architectural Record (May, 1959), pp. 219-242. 3OFaber, Birren, ”The Psychology of Color for the Class- room," Nation's Schools (April, 1954), pp. 92-94. l6 thing, but it may also be distracting. He argues vigorously that it must have purpose, place, and be controlled. Dwight B. Ireland31 has emphasized that the school must provide a warm, receptive atmosphere for Children. Lawrence B. Perkins32 and walter Cooking have asked school plant planners to remember the following instructions: 1) Use color. 2) Use color carefully to conserve good seeing. 3) Use color fitted to the lighting, the size, the job, the atmosphere of the space and the activities in it. 4) Use light colors to spread the area of light and cheerfulness in usable space throughout a building. 5) Use bright colors to liven and punch home the con- cept of a school as a Cheerful, constructive place. Libraries Mary J. McManus33 has described how Chicago has dealt with certain physical inadequacies to achieve attractive and 31Dwight B. Ireland, ”Color, Courts and a Child—Size Scale Make This a Homelike School," Nation's Schools (October, 1956), pp. 66-70. 32Lawrence B. Perkins and‘Walter D. Cooking, Schools -(New York: Reinhold Publishing Co., 1949), p. 179. 33Mary J. McManus, "School Library Quarters in Chicago", American School and University (Vol. 1, 1956-57), pp. 157—164. l7 functional library facilities. She has also presented some Challenging concepts of what library facilities might include in the future. Audrey Newman34 has analyzed the function of the instructional materials center with particular attention to the variety of services provided for the educational program in such a space. Heating and Ventilating, HenryWright3S has made a comparative analysis of the same school engineered with and without air conditioning. His estimates of the price differential approximate seventy-five cents per square foot for heating and ventilating costs. Neal B. Smith36 has presented an interesting discussion concerning the effect of heating systems on school design. In a specific case he outlines the strengths and weaknesses of an electrical heating system which was installed in an elementary school. Lighting 37 Harold V. Webb has proposed for our consideration a 34Audrey Newman, "School and Multi-Instructional Materials Center," American School and University (Vol. 1, 1958-59), pp. 262-270. 35Henry wright, ”What Does School Air Conditioning Cost?" Amepican School Board Journal (January, 1958), pp. 33—34. 36Neal B. Smith, "Electric Heating and School Design," Amegican School Board Journal (February, 1959), pp. 48-49. 37Harold V. Webb, ”Light and Color," American School Board Journal (August, 1957), pp. 42-44. t.» ‘1 a. ....x ... . s u 18 plan whereby proper light and color can contribute substantially toward improving the learning process. R. I. Burnham38 has declared that it is better economics to use better paint, better lighting equipment, and better lighting controls than to invest the school dollar in unproductive footcandles. The report of the AASA School Building Commission39 has pointed out that a good visual environment is not alone a matter of foot candles. Summary The foregoing review of the literature has attempted to pinpoint some of the relevant and meaningful statements that have been made in the area of school plant planning. Various facets of this procedure have been highlighted. Not all have been considered. An appropriate Closing remark for this section might be the following: Let the educator outline for the architect what items of educational significance are sought in each situation, and buildings more Closely related to educational needs will result. 38R. I. Burnham, ”New Lighting Concepts for New Schools," American School Board Journal (December, 1956), pp. 31‘32. 39American Association of School Administrators, Planning America's School Buildings, (Washington:AASA, 1960), p. 121. 4°N. L. Engelhardt Sr., N. L. Engelhardt Jr., and Stanton Leggett. School Planning and Buildigg,Handbook (New York: J. W. Dodge Corp., 1956), p. 73. .'...-o av‘b . I a. or: .. .oav . 'fi a... u u- v“ . nu-Kh nu- . Juno-I 04-,Q .- not"... -.-" u "- v. I .. .q I _ "it- I 19 Overview Chapter Two will concern itself with the need for educational criteria in the school plant planning practices of the Chicago Board of Education. A report on the differences in educational adequacy of the buildings surveyed will be pre- sented. This evaluation was effected by an independent educa- tional consultant from the Michigan State university Staff. Observations of urban school plant planners will be cited. Suggestions from knowledgeable members of the Board of Educa- tion's administrative staff will be discussed. Chapter Three will be the statement of educational cri- teria for new elementary school buildings in Chicago. These specifications will be a distillation of the review of the literature, the thoughtful suggestions of knowledgeable staff :members, the contributions of curriculum Committee members, and the critical comments of the following experts: 1. Anthony G. Adinolphi Director of School Housing Division Detroit Public Schools Detroit, Michigan 2. Evelyn M. Carlson Assistant Superintendent in charge of CCurriculum Development Chicago Board of Education Chicago, Illinois 3. 10. 20 Thomas J. Higgins Director, Bureau of School Population and Facilities Survey Chicago Board of Education Chicago, Illinois (Also Past President, National Council on Schoolhouse Construction) Frederick W. Hill Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Business Affairs Minneapolis Public Schools Minneapolis, Minnesota Stanton Leggett Educational Consultant Engelhardt, Engelhardt, Leggett, and Cornell New York, New York Donald J. Leu Associate Professor Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Floyd G. Parker Associate Professor Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan (Also Secretary-Treasurer, National Council on School House Construction) John Lyon Reid, A. I. A. Reid, Rockwell, Banwell, and Taries San Francisco, California Linn Smith, A. I. A. Linn Smith Associates, Incorporated Birmingham, Michigan Lloyd L. Waite Building Coordinator Caddo Parish School Board Shreveport, Louisiana (Also Past President, National Council on Schoolhouse Construction) 21 Chapter Four will summarize the study and suggest certain next steps that might be taken by the Chicago Board of Education to incorporate the proposed methodology and materials in its planning procedures for new school construc- tion. A bibliography and appendix will complete the contents of this study. -CHAPTER TWO THE NEED FOR EDUCATIONAL CRITERIA IN CHICAGO Chicago's Board of Education for a period of many years has maintained its own Bureau of Architecture. All of its new buildings and additions were designed by this staff. In 1953 when Dr. Benjamin C. Willis was appointed General Superin- tendent of Schools, he realized that an increased pace in the school building program was indicated. In order to do the work quickly and effectively he had two choices: 1. Expand the Bureau of Architecture. 2. Employ private architects. He Chose the latter. Educational specifications of a someWhat general and limited nature had been used in the past. These continued to be the written expression of educational planning by the Chicago Board of Education. An analysis of educational features and cost figures in selected new elementary school buildings in Chicago has now been completed. For purposes of this analysis thirty—seven new elementary school buildings whose contracts were awarded by the Chicago Board of Education between January 1, 1954 and 23 December 31, 1958 were Chosen. All Change orders within this period affecting the cost of each building were included in the total of expenditures. All of these buildings are now in use. Some have gained for their architects local and national awards. It should be noted that eighteen (18) of the projects were designed by the Bureau of Architecture and nineteen (19) of the schools were designed by thirteen (13) private archi- tectural firms. The buildings included in this study represent a tax dollar expenditure of $19,995,660.00 or 19.1% of the total capital outlay during the years 1954-1958. Demonstrable differences between buildings of similar size or like budgets were found in the following categories: 1. educational adequacy 2. size of Classrooms 3. square feet per pupil 4. design efficiency These inadequacies and inconsistencies in school buildings twould seem to suggest the need for providing more detailed information to the architects employed. With this statement Of educational criteria for elementary schools in Chicago the architect would be better able to design a "form” that would Permit and allow the "function" desired. 24 Educational Adequacy Rating gf_School_Plants The educational adequacy of each building was determined by means of a rating form developed specifically for the Chicago elementary schools. This rating form provides a method for evaluating the following five sections of a school plant: I. Regular Classrooms II. Kindergartens III. Special Rooms IV. Administrative Areas V. General Areas Consideration of both the individual scores and the total score for each building provides a basis upon which to appraise the adequacy of the plant for educational purposes. A.hypothetically perfect school plant would receive 100.0 points or 100 per cent on the rating form. However, since compromises with the ideal are often made during planning and construction because of financial reasons, few buildings would receive over 80.0 points. Buildings receiving more than 70.0 points, in terms of present practices, are very good school buildings; buildings receiving 60.0 to 70.0 points should be considered above the average school building in use today. Buildings receiving 50.0 to (“3.0 points may be considered as average school buildings. Build- iJlgs receiving less than 50.0 points are below average and normally Ifirquire considerable modernization and rehabilitation. Buildings 25 receiving less than 40.0 points are severely substandard and ordinarily should be abandoned for school purposes. An independent and experienced school plant specialist was employed to rate each building. This specialist had no knowledge of the planning personnel involved in the individual building programs. A copy of the Rating Form is included. See Appendix 1. Egggational_Adequacy Ratlggylgtal Score The school buildings that were rated, varied from a high total score of 75.8 points to a low of 48.6 points. This represents a range of 27.2 points. The median score was 62.2 points. It is significant to note that the median score for the five highest buildings was 71.0 points as contrasted with a median score of 52.5 for the five lowest buildings or a difference of 18.5 points. Another way of expressing this difference is to say that in terms of educational adequacy, as expressed by the rating form, the five highest buildings scored 35.2%.higher than the five lowest buildings. The educational adequacy rating score has increased tiLightly during the past five years. The first five buildings (fllnstructed had a mean score of 61.2 while the last five build- ixugs constructed had a mean educational adequacy score of 63.8, an increase of 2.6. 26 Chart 1 visually summarizes the above information. Educational Adequacy Rating Classrooms The regular classrooms in each elementary school varied from a high educational adequacy score of 74.7 to a low of 42.5. This represents a range of 32.2. The median score was 58.0. The educational adequacy rating score of the classrooms has decreased during the past five years. The first five buildings constructed had a median Classroom score of 74.2 while the last five buildings had a median classroom score of 66.0 for a reduction of 8.2. Chart 2 visually summarizes the above information. Educational_Adequagy,Rating Kindergartens The Kindergarten rooms varied from a high educational adequacy rating score of 88.0 to a low of 56.0. This represents a range of 32.0. It is significant to note that the median for the five highest scoring Kindergartens was 86.0 as contrasted with a median score of 62.0 for the five lowest scoring Kindergartens or a.difference of 24.0. The educational adequacy score of the Kindergartens has incrpeased during the past five years. The first five buildings 8:345: .5013 >¢<§m83m .5553 on 3 8 3 «a ea 3 a— 2 N— =— 5 an an 5 as a mu 2 a 2 2 m— m— = ha: 3.— .wmoom 1.5.0.: 02.52". >0O0430m-04 J.F—.P