A an: FEEQCESg {R SELECTEU MiCHiGAN FUEL“: SCHOOL DESSTRECTS Thesis for {he Dawn of DE. D. Ei’iECHEGhN STATE UfiWERSITY Herbert Havens Sheathelm 1966 «.13 Eu (1') LIBRARY Michigan State University w __ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE SCHOOL-PLANT PLANNING PROCESS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS presented by Herbert Havens Sheathelm has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoDo degree in Edugation 914/ 654) I “ainr n'rnfpccnr Date—WM— 0-169 p AWFK ‘ n 12‘ cl c‘sck a fled Iv AD. ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE SCHOOL-PLANT PLANNING PROCESS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS by Herbert Havens Sheathelm Purpose of the Study The broad goal of this study was to assist those responsible for school-plant planning to more effectively discharge their respon- sibilities and to provide local school districts with the best pos- sible school-plants in which to carry out their educational programs. The specific purposes were to: 1. Identify the major steps involved in the school-plant planning process as described in the literature. Determine the school-plant planning process used in selected Michigan school districts and compare it with that found in the literature. Examine the school-plant planning process from the percep- tion of the individual in the local district primarily responsible for school-plant planning. Make recommendations for the possible improvement of current practices in school-plant planning in the selected districts. instru: observe largest members plant thrcugfi Herbert Havens Sheathelm Procedures The writer conducted a review of the literature to identify the school-plant planning process. It was concluded that most authors agree on the principles and major steps of this process, and a series of generalized observations were deve10ped which constitute a summa- tion of the school-plant planning process as found in the literature. A structured interview form.was designed as a data collection instrument which closely paralleled the format of the generalized observations. A pOpulation was selected which included the twelve largest school districts in Michigan, excluding Detroit. The 1965 p membership of these districts ranged from 16,414 to 46,563 pupils. Each of the twelve districts was visited to identify the school- plant planning process being carried out in that particular district, through use of the structured interview. Findings Information is presented on school district practices for each major step of the school-plant planning process. Similarities and differences in the practices of the districts are pointed out and dis- cussed. Conclusions were drawn by comparing the practices of the school districts with the school-plant planning process described in the literature. Conclusions are grouped under seven major headings: (1) description of the districts, (2) administrative organization, (3) district-wide planning, (4) planning the individual school-plant, (5) architectural planning, (6) equipping, and (7) occupying. plant ‘ gan lx' Specii‘ study. Herbert Havens Sheathelm Thirty-four recommendations are made for improving the school- plant planning process, some of which have implications for the Michi- gan Legislature, Department of Education, and major state universities. Specific recommendations are made for the districts included in the study. A STUDY OF THE SCHOOL-PLANT PLANNING PROCESS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS By Herbert Havens Sheathelm A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1966 1. cm” if r cere a meat p‘ Emit: McKe e ) I D; A. 5:! l U! U‘f .1 ’ t. 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The concern and support of many peOple has contributed to the completion of this report. The writer would like to express his sin- cere appreciation to all who have speeded its progress. Special appreciation is expressed for the continued encourage- ment provided by Dr. Floyd Parker, Chairman of the writer's Doctoral Committee; and Drs. Richard Featherstone, Troy Stearns, and James McKee, members of the Committee. Respondents in the selected districts gave unselfishly of their time, and provided the necessary raw material for the study. The Michigan Department of Education also assisted in gathering the needed data. The writer would be remiss if he did not recognize the un- swerving support of his wife, Shirlee. ii Cha TABLE OF CONTENTS AcmOWIEDGWNTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 LI 8 T OF TAB IE S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I NTRODUCTI ON 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . Value of the Study . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . Population 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Procedures Employed . . . . . . . . Data Collection Instrument . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . smary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 II. THE SCHOOLPPLANT PLANNING PROCESS . . . Major Steps in the Process . . . . . District-Wide Planning . . . . . . . The School Survey . . . . . . . . . The long-Range P1811 o o o o o o o 0 Site Selection and Acquisition . . Planning the Individual School-Plant Educational Planning . . . . . . . Architectural Planning, Design, and Equipping and Occupying . . . . . . smary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Generalized Observations of the School Planning Process . . . . . . . . . III. THE SCHOOL-PLANT PLANNING PROCESS IN THE SEI-EC'ED DISTRICTS O O C O O O O O A Description of the Districts . . . Relationship to MetrOpolitan Areas Geographic Size . . . . . . . . . . iii Construction -P1ant Page ii H Oxooo \IU'IUI ll 13 14 17 20 21 33 37 42 43 52 59 63 64 75 75 75 76 ' u I . I i I D I I I C l O O O o O I v I g . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’ i . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . '5‘ - ' ‘ e t . y . . o n U‘ l n 32‘ ‘s. Chapter Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Ability and Effort . . . . . . . Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . Observations Concerning the Districts . . . Administrative Organization . . . . . . . . . Major Problems Faced by the Suggestions for Improving the General 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Responsibility for School-Plant Planning . Procedures for District-Wide Planning . . . . Procedures for Planning the The Comprehensive Survey . . . . . . . . . Determination of Educational Program Needs Determination of School Housing Needs . . . The Master Plan for Sites . . . . . . . . . Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Planning . . . . . . . . . . . Architectural Planning . . . . . . . . . . Equipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fling Process 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . The Basis for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . Generalized Observations . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Structured Interview . Research and Experience . . . . . . . . . . cone lug ions 0 O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O 0 Description of the Districts . . . . . . . Administrative Organization . . . . . . . . District-Wide Planning . . . . . . . . . . Planning the Individual School-Plant . . . Architectural Planning . . . . . . . . . . Equipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . occupying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . smary I O O I O O O O I O O O 0 O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix A - Interview Form . . . . . . . . . iv School-Plant Planner School-Plant Plan- Page 77 8O 82 82 86 86 86 88 88 9O 90 94 96 96 99 99 103 106 107 107 109 110 111 111 112 112 113 114 114 115 116 117 118 119 119 119 127 128 133 134 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Geographic Size in Square Miles, 1956-1965 . . . . Ten-Year History of Membership . . . . . . . . . . Total Membership Growth, 1956-1965 (Rank Order by Total Membership Increase) . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Ability (State Equalized Valuation per Resident Member) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Effort (Analysis of Local PrOperty Tax, 1964-65 in M1118) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Educational Facilities and Construction Since 1956 Persons Interviewed Most Directly Responsible for SChOOl-Plant Planning 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Comprehensive Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method Used for Annual Enrollment Projections . . . Ultimate Holding Capacity Study . . . . . . . . . . Capacity Figures (Availability and Categories Used) Master Plan for Future School Sites . . . . . . . . Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Size of Group Involved in Educational Planning for Specific Buildings by Number of School Districts Participants in Educational Planning for Specific Buildings by Number of School Districts . . . . . Time Allowed for Educational Planning for Specific Buildings by Number of School Districts . . . . . Development of written Educational Specifications by Number of School Districts . . . . . . . . . . Page 77 78 79 81 82 83 87 89 91 92 94 95 97 98 100 100 101 103 Table 19. Table 19. 20. 21. Page Architect Selection by Number of School Districts . . . . 104 Use of Local Architectural Firms by Number of School Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Restrictions Placed on Architects by Number of School Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 vi INTRODUCTION During the past three years, the author has been fortunate in having a series of experiences which have helped broaden his view of the school-plant planning process. A working relationship with the Secretary-Treasurer of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construc- tion permitted close contacts with some of the leaders of that organi- zation. Another valuable experience was limited participation on the School Survey Team of the College of Education at Michigan State University. This team of advanced graduate students worked under the direction of staff members in helping local school districts to identify problems and formulate solutions. The third, and perhaps unifying experience, was the Oppor- tunity of working with a local school district, of approximately 30,000 pupils, as an administrative intern. The major task of this position was to aid the administrative staff in develOping a long- range facilities plan. Later the author served as a consultant in school-plant planning for the same district, and assumed responsi- bility for coordinating the entire school-plant planning process. In addition, these positions have allowed attendance at con- ventions and meetings on the national, regional, state, and local level which have been concerned with the school-plant planning process. Emerging from these experiences has been a growing concern for the apparent gap between the school-plant planning process described in the literature, and the actual planning practices of local school districts. It was this concern which triggered the conception of the study. CHAPTER I NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY In the present system of public education, each school district establishes goals and objectives for itself based on the needs of the community and pupils which that school district serves. The school district then develops an educational program, or curriculum, which it believes will be most effective in accomplishing the goals and objec- tives which have been established. For the school program to function, certain tools are required. A well-trained, capable, professional staff is perhaps the most vital; but that staff must have adequate materials, such as books, supplies, and equipment, if they are to accomplish their objectives; and, of course, they must have a building in which to Operate. They need more than a building. They need a well-planned edu- cational facility which functions as an effective tool for the profes- sional staff and contributes to the accomplishment of the objectives which have been established. When a school building is constructed, little thought is given to the fact that it will probably be in use for a half century. This means that it not only must meet the needs of the existing school pro- gram, it must be planned in such a way that it can adapt to program changes during the life of the building. Buildings being constructed l“: MA int n V. m \ V 54‘. v .‘1 t. CAM“ in this decade will be expected to serve into the twenty-first cen- tury. It is estimated that for the 1965-66 school year there are 24,381 Operating public school districts in the United States. These districts serve an average daily membership of 41,727,623 pupils and have an instructional staff of 1,866,273. Their total expenditures are estimated at $25,824,635,000. Of this, $20,906,498,000 is current expenditure for elementary and secondary schools, an average of $501 per membership pupil. Capital outlay totals $3,488,467,000, an increase of 7.6 per cent over 1964-65.1 Writing in 1963, Cocking noted that for fifteen years 6,000 to 8,000 schools have been constructed at an annual cost exceeding three billion dollars.2 Schools are a large investment when viewed at the school dis- trict level, as well as at the national level. School facilities con- stitute a large prOportion of the public's capital investment in most communities; and when funds are needed for construction of new facili- ties, it is sometimes difficult to convince the local citizenry of the need for their continued support. It is essential that public funds spent for educational facili- ties be used wisely to construct facilities which can be used effectively throughout their life span and which are a helpful tool in carrying out 1National Education Association, NBA Research Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February, 1966), p. 22. 2Walter Cocking, "Planning School Plants," Overview, Vol. 4, No. 5 (May, 1963), p. 75. the objectives of the school program. It is the planning process by which such facilities can be produced that this report is concerned. Purpose of the Study The broad goal of this study is to assist those responsible for school-plant planning to more effectively discharge their respon- sibilities and to provide local school districts with the best possible school-plants in which to carry out their educational programs. The specific purposes are to: 1. Identify the major steps involved in the school-plant planning process as described in the literature. 2. Determine the school-plant planning process used in selected Michigan school districts and compare it with that found in the literature. 3. Examine the school-plant planning process from the perception Of the individual in the local district primarily responsible for school-plant planning. 4. Make recommendations for the possible improvement of current practices in school-plant planning in the selected districts. Value of the Study In order for changes or improvements to take place in a pro- cess, it is first necessary tO have a thorough knowledge of the present method of Operation. Changes should be made only after a careful analysis Of all the facts available. It is the purpose Of this study to help identify and make clear the planning process being used in the schools studied. The importance Of descriptive research in creating change is described by Van Dalen: Before much progress can be made in solving prob- lems, men must possess accurate descriptions of the phenomena with which they work . . . . TO solve prob- lems about children, school administration, curriculum, or the teaching of arithmetic, descriptive researchers ask these initial questions: What exists--what is the present status Of these phenomena? Determining the na- ture Of prevailing conditions, practices, and attitudes-- seeking accurate description Of activities, Objects, pro- cesses, and persons--is their Objective. They depict current status and sometimes identify relationships that exist among phenomena or trends that attempt to make predictions about future events.1 In addition to describing the present status of school-plant planning, it is hOped the study will serve as a guide for future action in improving the process of school-plant planning. By providing an overview of the literature in the field regarding this process, the study will allow a measure of comparison between existing practice and the existing state of the art described in the literature. The value of such descriptive studies is explained by Van Dalen when he states: Descriptive studies that Obtain accurate facts about existing conditions or detect significant relationships between current phenomena and interpret the meaning of the data provide educators with practical and immediately useful information. Factual information about existing status enables members of the profession to make more intelligent plans about future courses Of action and helps them interpret educational problems more effectively to the public. Pertinent data regarding the present scene may focus attention upon needs that would otherwise remain unnoticed. They may also reveal deveIOpments, conditions, or trends that will convince citizens to keep pace with others or to prepare for probable future events. Since existing educational conditions, processes, practices, and programs are constantly changing, there is always a need for up-to-date descriptions Of what is taking place.2 1Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962), p. 184. 2Ibid., p. 212. It is hOped this study will prove to be a valuable addition to the literature Of the school-plant planning process, and will be help- ful to all those involved in school-plant planning, particularly those included in the study population. Design Of the Study This study is designed to utilize the descriptive method of research and generally follows the patterns of descriptive research found in Van Dalen.1 As such, it is not based on hypotheses, but rather a description Of current status Of the school-plant planning process and the more current literature in the field. One of the hOped 'for outcomes of such a study is the generation of hypotheses which will lead to further studies in the field. This generating ability of de- scriptive research is described by Good, Barr, and Scates: The normative-survey (descriptive) method is not notably forward-looking, but it may be of service in this direction. It may reveal practices or conditions which are well above the average, representing advanced thinking and administration; . . . . Again, the nor- mative method may call attention to current trends and permit people to evaluate and direct these new tenden- cies which are taking shape. The normative attack is not essentially forward-looking in itself, but it may well perform an important function in giving pertinent data to persons who are'forward—looking.2 lIbid., pp. 184-212. 2Carter V. Good, A. S. Barr, and Douglas E. Scates, The Method- glpgy of Educational Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1941), p. 293. POpulation There were two major factors involved in the selection Of the pOpulation for the study. First, and most important, the population had to allow the writer to accomplish the Objectives of the study, and second, the number Of districts had to be small enough to allow the writer to visit each district and interview the person responsible for school-plant planning. The study was designed to take an in-depth look at the total school-plant planning process of the selected districts, and to make recommendations for improving that process. Since the process is com- plex, it seemed desirable to visit each district and utilize a struc- tured interview procedure rather than use questionnaires via mail. It was also necessary to select a relatively small group of school dis- tricts facing somewhat the same problems, rather than include a larger number Of districts which had very little in common. The writer chose to include the twelve largest Michigan public school districts in terms of enrollment, excluding Detroit. It was felt that the sc0pe and magnitude of problems facing the Detroit School District more closely parallels those Of other very large districts, e.g., New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Chicago, than those Of the twelve districts in the study. Conversely, the smaller districts in the State, while perhaps facing the same problems, face them at a different level of Operation. The twelve districts included in the study were: SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBERSHIP, 1965-66* Flint 46,563 Grand Rapids 33,011 Lansing 30,849 Livonia 30,181 Pontiac 22,905 Dearborn 22,332 Saginaw 22,166 Royal Oak 20,069 Wayne 18,704 Kalamazoo 18,365 Taylor 17,618 Waterford 16,414 *Michigan Department of Education, unaudited fourth Friday membership. Selection of this pOpulation afforded the writer a number of important advantages. It was possible to personally visit each of the school districts and collect the data by interview. Collection was made easier and more reliable by the OOOperation Of the informants. Individuals interviewed were concerned with similar problems and Oper- ated under somewhat similar conditions. The pOpulation was considered apprOpriate for the purposes of the study. Procedures Employed Preliminary investigations were carried out to determine the feasibility of the study. This included a review of selected readings in the literature of school-plant planning, a search of Dissertation Abstracts, and a series Of discussions with persons experienced in the area of school-plant planning. Conferences were held with Michigan State University faculty members, Officials Of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction, a school-plant planning consultant fOr an archi- tectural firm, and several administrators of local school districts in- C1uded in the sample. Preliminary readings suggested that a generalized 10 approach to school-plant planning could be identified, and all discus- sions indicated not only the feasibility but the need for the study. The study was then designed to be carried out in the following five steps: A systematic review Of the available literature in the school-plant planning field was conducted. It was necessary to rely on a relatively small number Of texts concerned with the total planning process. Authors of these texts are quoted frequently as their views on most of the major steps in the planning process are examined. As a result of this study, it was possible not only to identify the major steps of school-plant planning, but to develOp a series of generalized Ob- servations as to how the steps should be conducted. A structured interview form was develOped using the generalized Observations as a guide. The form was tested in one pilot school district, and necessary re— visions were made. Structured interviews were held with the person respon- sible for school-plant planning in each of the school districts included in the pOpulation. Data gathered from the local school districts was organized and reported in summary form. This was compared with the generalized observations develOped from the literature. Observations Of local school administrators as to the nature Of the problems in- volved in planning were reported as were some of their suggestions for improvement of school-plant planning. Data gathered from the local school districts was analyzed, conclusions drawn, and recommendations for- mulated for possible improvement Of the school-plant planning process. Data Collection Instrument It was decided early that the study would be concerned with the total school-plant planning process rather than just one step or phase 0f the total process. Some method was needed to allow the local school administrator to give a complete description of school-plant planning 11 being conducted in that school district. This called for an instru- ment which covered all phases of school-plant planning and which was to some extent Open-ended. A search of the literature failed to dis- close such an instrument. A data collection instrument was developed by the writer, based upon the generalized Observations resulting from a review Of the literature. The instrument was designed to be used in a structured interview, and allowed for a brief description Of the district, as well as a description of each major step in the school-plant planning process. Definition Of Terms The literature Of the school-plant planning process contains many terms which apply to specific items and are generally recognized by educators throughout the United States. These terms are used throughout the study without special definition. Other terms are de- fined at apprOpriate places, especially when a thorough discussion of the term is necessary. Those terms which require clarification as to their use in this study, are included to facilitate understanding. Educational facilities. All Of the physical facilities utilized in the conduct Of the educational program: the school building, its furniture and equipment, and the site. School-plant. Used interchangeably with educational facility. Primary unit. An educational facility which normally houses one classroom Of primary (K-3) children in a structure similar to a Single family home. 12 Primary school. An educational facility designed to house the primary grades (K-3), usually smaller than a regular elementary school, but which includes two or more classrooms. Portable unit. An educational facility which can be readily moved, usually consisting of an individual classroom, sometimes mounted on wheels. School:plant planning process. The total process involved in planning educational facilities for a school district. This includes district-wide planning, or the planning f2£_facilities, as well as the planning 2f specific buildings. Long-range plan. A plan which states the long-range facilities need for the school district. Outlines the need for new sites and facilities, as well as the modernization, abandonment, or change in use of existing facilities. Masteryplan. That part of the long-range plan which gives the location of all facilities needed to meet the needs of the district when its ultimate holding capacity is reached. Educational planning. The planning necessary to produce a statement Of the educational program a prOposed building is to house, and the facilities and qualities the building should include, based upon the philOSOphy, goals, and Objectives Of the school district. Educational specifications. A written statement emanating from the educational planning which sets the task for the architect. Comprehensive survey. A wide ranging study of many aspects of a school district without special emphasis on any particular problem. Partial survey. A study of a school district which emphasizes depth study of one or more aspects of the educational endeavor, fre- 9uently the school-plant needs. 13 Percentage Of survival projection. A method of projecting en- rollment for a relatively short period (usually five years) based upon a history of the numbers of pupils "surviving" from one grade to the next. Reapondent. Refers to the person from each school district who was interviewed by the writer and supplied the information for the study. Data collection instrument. The structured interview form which was constructed to gather information specifically for this study. (Appendix A) Summary School-plant planning is primarily a function Of the local school district. It is essential that the best possible school-plants be planned and constructed. The planning of school-plants is a complex process involving a series of inter-related steps. The general purpose of this study is to aid in improving this process. The study was de- signed as a descriptive research project to help identify existing school-plant planning practices as a first step in their improvement. A pOpulation was selected which would meet the Objectives Of the study and allow the writer to visit each Of the districts. The study was designed as a series of five steps, each Of which was carefully con- ducted in accordance with the design Of the study. CHAPTER II THE SCHOOL-PLANT PLANNING PROCESS Educators have long been concerned with the educational facil- ities available to them. William Alcott's prize essay Of 1831 was en- titled "Construction Of Schoolhouses" and paid particular attention to school location and playground area.1 A few years later Horace Mann also emphasized the importance of location and sufficient playground space.2 Giddis traces the school survey movement from the Prussian Schools in 1831 to the current school survey practices Of the Big Ten Universities. Such educational leaders as Henry Barnard, Horace Mann, and William T. Harris are found as directors of some of the early surveys.3 These men were engaged in an effort to improve the quality of education and, in many cases, the quality of educational facilities. But what constitutes a "good" facility? 1Russell A. Holy, The Relationship of City Planning to School- Plant Planning (New York: TeaEhers College, Columbia University, 1935), pp.’l7-18. 2Horace Mann, Report Of the Secretary of the Board of Education on the Supply of School Houses (Boston: Dutton &‘Wentworth, 1838). 3William James Giddis, "A Study Of the Methods and Procedures Used in the School Survey Services at Michigan State University and Other Publicly Supported Big Ten Universities" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964). 14 15 Gilliland states, "Apgood school building must implement the program and a good school building must provide the prOper environment for learning."1 These seem to be the two recurring vital criteria for an educational facility. Herrick writes: A school building should be designed to fit the ac- tivities that are to take place within it . . . . Care- ful 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 hin- drance, to the many generations of teachers and pupils who will use it.2 The importance of planning facilities for activities was also emphasized by McGrath and Buehring when they compared an elementary school constructed in 1857 with one constructed on the same site in 1957. They comment: NO longer are schools simply enclosed space, into which the children are fitted as best the series Of cubicles will permit. Today, since basic educational planning revolves around the child, the physical form Of the shelter is determined by the activities sched- uled tO meet the needs Of that child.3 The environmental aspect is emphasized in Planning America's School Buildings in a chapter entitled "Environment Educates." The school is for learning--not just for teaching. And the physical environment is a powerful force in this learning process. The school environment may be 1John W. Gilliland, "What Makes a Good Schoolhouse?" American School and Universipy, Vol. 36, No. 8 (April, 1964), p. 26. 2John H. Herrick, et. a1., From School Program to School Plant (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956), p. 104. 3John McGrath and L. E. Buehring, "100 Years of School Plant Design," The Nation's Schools, VOl. 59, NO. 1 (January, 1957), p. 50. 16 likened to conditions conducive to growth Of a flower- ing plant in a garden . . . . It envelOps the child from the time he enters school in the morning until he leaves it at the end of the day. It is an encompassing atmosphere. Its quality is determined by each individual's sensitivity to the mellowness or harshness, the pleas- antness or unpleasantness Of his physical surroundings and by his relationships with classmates, teachers and principal. The child is a part Of his environment and cannot easily separate himself from it.1 Unfortunately, it is not possible to describe a "good" building which can be constructed by any well-meaning school district. The most obvious reason for this is that we have identified an essential cri- teria of a good building as one which assists in implementing the pro- gram and is designed to fit the activities which will take place within it. It was also pointed out that each local school district is expected to develOp a program which will meet the needs of that district. Thus the "good" building for one district, in that it implements the program of that district, may be totally inadequate for a district with dif- ferent needs and a different program. Fox reminds us that "an ideal building can be found for one community but that no one building can be considered as ideal for all. Each school district needs to seriously examine its own situation."2 It should also be made clear that the planning pf a building is merely one phase Of the total planning process involved in planning for buildings. While the extreme importance of thorough planning for 1American Association Of School Administrators, Planning America's School Buildings (Washington D.C.: The Association, 1960), p. 23. 2Willard Fox, "You Need a School-Building Consultant!" American School Board Journal, Vol. 148, NO. 1 (January, 1964), p. 52. 17 a specific building project is acknowledged, the failure to complete earlier steps, as well as subsequent steps, may cause the building to be severely reduced in effectiveness. It is the total planning process with which this study is con- cerned. The balance of this chapter will attempt to identify the major steps in this process and then analyze each one as to the areas which should be included, organization and involvement of peOple, and the length of time which should be allowed for that particular step. Major Steps in the Process One would not expect to find complete agreement between author- ities writing in this field, and certainly the writer did not. What was hOped for was that a common thread could be found in the form Of basic agreements as to what the major steps in the planning process should be. A review Of the literature showed this to be very much the case. A recent publication Of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction described this as a generalized approach. Specific techniques and methods of plant planning vary with both the particular personalities and back- grounds Of the school Officials and with the nature of the situation involved in each Specific planning problem. However, a generalized approach has evolved which gives good guidance to future physical plant planning activity at all levels of education in the schools everywhere.1 1National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, NCSC Guide for Planning School Plants (East Lansing, Michigan: N.C.S.C., 1964), p. l. 18 The NCSC Guide described this generalized approach in four major steps. The steps involved in school plant programming can be summarized under four major headings: 1. district-wide plant survey; 2. educational specifications for specific buildings; 3. architectural planning, design, and construction; and 4. equipping and occupying the new building.1 Engelhardt describes the process in two broad areas. The first is the develOpment of a comprehensive plan based upon a comprehensive school building survey. The second is the individual school building project which is based upon the long-range plan. This consists of three major phases, or steps. First, the preparation of a comprehen— sive program of educational and community requirements, or educational specifications; second, the architectural planning process, resulting in final working drawings and specifications; and third, the construc- tion Of the building in conformity with the first and second phases.2 MacConnell visualizes the process as three major steps. First, the school system must decide upon the nature of the educational pro- gram its community wants. This involves the develOpment of enrollment data as well as the description of the nature Of the program Of learn- ing activities for each school. Second, is the appraisal Of the exist- ing school plant, to adapt it and utilize where possible. Third, is the establishment of a schedule which provides for the step-by-step 1Ibid., p. 6. 2Nickolaus L. Engelhardt, et. a1., School Planning and Build- ing Handbook (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1956), pp. 5-6. 19 construction Of a school plant.1 To give some idea of the broad sc0pe of this third step, MacConnell2 refers to the twenty-eight steps found in the 27th Yearbook of the American Association Of School Administra- tors.3 Herrick summarizes the entire process under four headings. First is the survey Of the over-all needs of the school system followed by the educational planning, the architectural planning, and the construction phases for each building. These steps are not wholly separate and sequential, but overlap.4 Sumption and Landes do not Specifically list three or four major steps but place major emphasis on the develOpment of a long-range plan based upon a comprehensive survey of community needs. Attention is then turned to the planning of a Specific building and the extreme im- portance Of educational specifications. Particular attention is given to the selection and develOpment of the site, and individual chapters are concerned with planning for modifiability, safety, healthfulness, efficiency, and economy.5 Planning America's School Buildings divides the total process into two major areas--the develOpment Of a comprehensive plan, including 1James D. MacConnell, Planning for School Buildings (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957), pp. 13-14. 21bid., pp. 14-15. 3American Association of School Administrators, American School Buildings, 27th Yearbook (Washington,D.C.: The Association, 1949). 4Herrick, p. 5. 5Merle R. Sumption and Jack L. Landes, Planning Functional §ghool Buildingg (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), pp. 148-50. 20 long-range site selection, and planning within the school, or the plan- ning for a specific building.1 The major steps Of the planning process which will be used in this study evolved from a review of the literature. It closely par- allels the steps listed by the N.C.S.C. Guide2 with only a slight mod- ification. The division into the two broad areas identified by most authors seems to be a natural one--district-wide planning for School-plant and the planning required for each individual building project. Each of these major areas is then broken down into three steps. A. District-wide planning 1. The school survey 2. The long-range plan 3. Site selection and acquisition B. Planning for an individual building project 1. Educational planning 2. Architectural planning, design, and construction 3. Equipping and occupying These should not be considered as distinct, clear-cut steps, which must automatically follow one another, but rather as a general guide which will be helpful in most instances for those involved in the school-plant planning process. District-Wide Planning Basically, district-wide planning involves the develOpment of a long-range plan, or master plan, based upon a survey Of the needs of 1American Association Of School Administrators, Planning America's . . . . 2National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, pp. 6-19. 21 the school district. The importance of this long-range plan is empha- sized by most school-plant authorities. Caudill gives this definition: What is a long-range plan? It is simply an inclu- sive general program which anticipates and provides for both immediate and future school building needs. Many communities, building today for tomorrow, are saving taxpayers thousands Of dollars by fitting im- mediate construction into well mapped ultimate build- ing programs. They realize that to try to anticipate tomorrow's needs is somewhat of a gamble, but they also know that to disregard those needs is a dead certain loss.1 The School Survey This phase of the planning process is the broad foundation on r ‘\ which all future decisions regarding school-plant must rest. White it g/ may vary a great deal from district to district, it is a step which cannot be left out. It may range from the perception of the needs by a single person to broad community involvement and the use of outside consultants. Engelhardt stresses the importance of the survey by stating: A school system without such a survey report for its guidance is like a bank without its comprehensive audit, or a manufacturing company without its inven- tory. Many school systems boast two, three, or even more such surveys, following a time schedule of at least one a decade.2 Surveys are generally classified as to type, according to who is involved in conducting them. Early surveys tended to be conducted by educational authorities from outside the system. Many were carried 1William W. Caudill, Toward Better School Design (New York: F. W. Dodge, 1954), p. 190. 2Engelhardt, p. 46. 22 out by a single individual, while some were conducted by small groups, and occasionally included local administration.1 Later efforts involved the establishment Of research depart- ments within local districts to carry out a continuous self-survey.2 This has been followed by the emergence of the COOperative survey, in which the experts serve largely in an advisory capacity.3 While the trend is toward the OOOperative survey, all three re- main in use. Writing in 1962, Van Dalen Observed: . . . All three patterns-~(l) the outside expert survey, (2) the self-survey, and (3) the cOOperative survey are still employed. But there is a definite trend away from the pioneer type of outside eXpert survey that is conducted exclusively by the research staff of a university or state department of educa- tion. The self-survey which is undertaken by members Of the local school organization appeared more fre- quently in the 1920's when schools began to add re- search specialists to their staffs who could Offer competent leadership. The self-survey remains pOpu- lar today, but since 1935 the cOOperative survey has been gaining ground.4 There seems to be nearly complete agreement that the school- plant survey should be a COOperative venture involving both professional educators and lay citizens in various stages Of the survey. Reference to this approach is made by Caudill,5 The N.C.S.C.,6 Engelhardt,7 1Giddis, p. 15. 2Elwood P. Cubberly, editor's introduction in The School Sur- vey by Jesse B. Sears (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1925), p. viii. 3Merle R. Sumption, "A Surve Of Surveys," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 57, NO. 3 (March, 1956 , p. 92. 4Van Dalen, p. 188. SCaudill, p. 190. 6National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, p. 4. 7Engelhardt, p. 45. 23 MacConnell,1 the A.A.S.A.,2 and perhaps its strongest prOponents, Sump- tion and Landes.3 McQuade testifies that: "School planning . . . re- quires a complicated blend Of local professionals and amateurs. The sharpest characteristic of today's school planning, in fact, is wide democratic involvement."4 The real value Of the COOperative approach is well stated by Herrick. The current school housing problem cannot be solved by boards Of education, or superintendents of schools, or architects, or school plant specialists alone. There are no magic fountains from which will flow the needed foresight and ingenuity, let alone the money, to do the job that is necessary. Effec- tive solution of the problems requires clear under- standing and intelligent participation by laymen, architects, and professional educators alike.5 As the cOOperative survey evolved from the expert and self— surveys, another trend was taking place. The expert surveys tended to be comprehensive in that they attempted to examine all phases of the school program and to make evaluative judgments concerning it. The self-survey, and more recently the OOOperative survey, are more apt to concentrate on specific problems. This trend is reported in the study 1MacConnell, p. 19. 2American Association Of School Administrators, Planning America's . . . , p. 89. 3Sumption and Landes, pp. 20-31. 4Walter McQuade (ed.), Schoolhouse (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958), p. 49. SHerrick, p. viii. 24 by Giddis;1 and COOper explains, "Although the earliest school surveys were what is now called 'comprehensive,' dealing with any and all as- pects Of a school system, there has been a growing tolerance within the survey movement for partial surveys."2 In this regard, the school-plant survey would have to be con- sidered a partial survey although it must at the same time be broad enough to base decisions on those factors which are truly significant. The N.C.S.C. suggests: The major aspects of the system-wide school plant study are: (l) determination Of present and an estimate of future educational needs; (2) determination of the adequacy Of existing facilities to meet both the qualitative and quantitative requirements of the educational program; and (3) develOping the recommended plan of action.3 Herrick4 suggests the same three phases. Marsha11,5 while stat- ing that there is no single pattern, feels there are three Obvious, though deceivingly simple, questions which must be answered: (1) How many pupils should we plan for, (2) What do we have to start with, and (3) What, and how, do we want to teach? 1Giddis, p. 18. 2Dan H. COOper, "School Surveys," EncyclOpedia Of Educational Research, ed. Chester W. Harris, March, 1959 (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 1211. 3National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, p. 6. 4Herrick, p. 21. 5John E. Marshall, "Where Consultants Can Help," American School_§nd Univergity, VOl. 35, NO. 9 (May, 1963), pp. 35-36. 25 Determination of Needs This is a two-phase problem which should be concerned with qualitative factors as well as quantitative. It would be very much in error to be concerned only with the number Of students to be housed, without a determination of the educational program desired for the pupils Of the school district. These will be discussed separately, but their close relationship should be kept well in mind. Program needs. A detailed description of the program to be housed in a specific building will be discussed later when educational specifications are examined. What is needed here is the broad outline of the hOpes and aspirations Of the citizens Of the community for their children--a clear statement of what the residents Of the school dis- trict expect of their schools and the quality of education which is desired. McQuade writes, TO get a school that fits, the neighborhood has to stand way back, and look hard, and decide some things about itself that are basic and Often very controver- sial. Perhaps nothing is more controversial today than the question: What kind Of education do you want to give your children?1 The planning of the school program Of a community is a diffi- cult, as well as an ongoing process. It is certainly desirable to have such educational program planning precede, or parallel the school-plant survey. In this case the school-plant survey team has such a study to analyze and may go on from there. Unfortunately, such educational planning is Often lacking, and the necessity for such planning may only be recognized when it is 1McQuade, p. 15. 26 necessary to evaluate buildings or construct new ones. In such cases, Herrick recommends that the study Should have the following character- istics: First, the study should be comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of the school's program .-. . . Secondly, the study should be oriented toward the future, with a reasonable degree Of imagination and idealism . . . . The third characteristic suggested is that the study include adequate attention both to the underly- ing purposes and philOSOphy Of the schools and to the Specifics of the program. The need for rather specific program policies on which to base the survey is pointed out by Herrick. Areas which might be included are: courses Of study, size Of class, size Of school, non-instructional services to be provided, and others.2 Where such policies are lacking, the work Of the survey team will be more difficult, and policies may need to be develOped before the survey can proceed. Pupils to be housed. No attempt will be made to list all of the methods for projecting enrollment or specific instructions for using a particular method. Such help is available in most texts on school- plant planning, from state departments Of instruction, survey bureaus of state universities, and consultants. Good examples are available in Herrick3 and MacConnell.4 1Herrick, pp. 36-37. 21bid., p. 40. 31bid., p. 50-57. 4MacConnell, pp. 30-35. 27 The difficulty, and accuracy, Of different techniques varies with the nature of the community and especially in those communities which are experiencing a very rapid rate of growth. Such communities may need to do an ultimate holding capacity study, which attempts to predict the number of dwelling units certain geographic areas will ultimately hold. An estimate Of the number Of pupils is then obtained by applying a pupil per dwelling unit factor. Such studies may be difficult and time consuming but are necessary if projections are to be meaningful. This method is also described by Herrick1 and MacConnell.2 Any study of future enrollment must also consider possible changes in the school district boundaries. Some districts may see very little prospect Of enlargement and may even expect to lose a portion to an adjacent district. Other districts may envision the annexation Of large geographical areas as the central city expands into surrounding rural areas. This is especially likely when the surrounding districts are primary school districts without secondary facilities, which is the case in many areas of Michigan. Analysis of Existing Resources After the needs Of the district have been identified, it is necessary to determine what resources are available for meeting that need. The material resources which are available consist of the exist- ing school-plants in the school district and the ability of the 1Herrick, p. 59. 2MacConnell, pp. 39-40. 28 district to finance new school plants and/or the modernization of Older facilities. Evaluation Of existing school:plant. Several factors appear repeatedly in the literature regarding the evaluation Of existing school buildings. These relate to: (1) educational program, (2) physi- cal structure, (3) location, and (4) capacity. The N.C.S.C. suggests the most important question to be answered in the evaluation of a building is, "To what extent do the facilities meet the needs of the educational program?"1 Educational adequacy Of the school-plant is concerned with how well the spaces are designed or can be economically adapted to serve their intended educational func- tions. The N.C.S.C. states that, "As a general rule, buildings tend to be Obsolete from an educational point Of view long before being struc- turally inadequate."2 Physical concerns are for structural soundness, fire safety, sanitation, mechanical systems, and the electrical system. While the most important concern should be educational program, it is probable that the decision to abandon a school building will rest more heavily on considerations of the physical structure itself. A third consideration is for the location of a particular build- ing. It should be located in an area where it can continue to serve the community. Many larger districts may find themselves with Older buildings in the central city which are no longer located in residential 1National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, p. 11. 21bid. 29 areas due tO the encroachment of business or industry. The convenience and safety of pupil travel to and from the school should also be con- sidered.1 The calculation Of capacity for most elementary buildings is rather simple, consisting primarily of multiplying the number of satis- factory classrooms by the desired average class size. The problems involved in determining capacity for large secondary schools are much more complex, and Often only generalized figures are available for capacity of secondary schools. Early efforts in this area were made by Anderson,2 Packer,3 and Morphet.4 More recent efforts have been made by Castaldi,5 and Conrad.6 The manual develOped by Conrad gives complete instructions and provides 11bid., p. 12. 2Homer W. Anderson, "A Method for Determining the Housing Re- quirements Of Junior High School Programs," Studies in Education, Vol. 3, NO. 3 (Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1926), 3Paul C. Packer, "Housing of High School Programs," Contribu- tions to Education, NO. 159 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1924). 4Edgar L. Morphet, The Mbasurement and Interpretation of School Building_Utilization (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927). 5New England School DeveIOpment Council, The Castaldi Nomogram (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Council, 1953). 6Marion J. Conrad, A Manual for Determining Operating Capacity of Secondary School Building§_(Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, The Ohio State University, 1954). 30 the necessary forms for a rather complicated process for determining secondary school capacity. With the emergence of the cOOperative school survey there has been an increasing use Of lay citizens in the evaluation Of existing school-plant. Sumption and Landes remark that the use of local compe- tencies results in better diffusion of information locally and also that the use of the expert appraiser in combination with local citizens promotes greater confidence in the evaluation than does the use Of an expert alone.1 The importance Of determining the educational adequacy Of a building was stressed earlier. This means that survey personnel must be thoroughly familiar with not only the existing school program but emerging trends and must relate this to the analysis of existing school- plant. The use Of an outside consultant and the professional staff of the system is necessary for this consideration of the program to be housed. Frost suggests that an architectural firm can answer a number Of questions regarding the physical nature of the building in an archi- tectural survey-report. He states that such a study can identify what can or cannot be done structurally and provide the necessary cost fac- tors. This would help avoid fruitless arguments by digging out the solid facts.2 While it might not be feasible to use an architect or 1Sumption and Landes, p. 80. 2Frederick G. Frost, Jr., "Architectural Survey Tells What's Best: Remodel, EXpand, or Build," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 74, NO. 6 (December, 1964), pp. 30-31. 31 engineer to survey all buildings in a large system, it would appear to be extremely helpful in making an appraisal of a particular building about which there might be excessive controversy or particular problems. Many score cards and evaluative devices have been develOped for use in evaluating school-plant. The value Of such devices is question- able as they involve subjective judgments and Often include dissimilar elements. They can be Of great help, however, to lay persons who are involved in evaluating school-plant. Landes and Sumption have develOped such a device specifically for use by lay citizens.1 Other evaluative devices Often cited are those develOped by McCleary;2 Odell;3 Engelhardt;4 Leu, Parker, and Glass;5 and The Ohio State University.6 Analysis of financial resources. An extended discussion could be included here regarding the present method of financial support to public education. Many would argue that the reliance of school districts on the local prOperty tax is inadequate. That changes in financial 1Jack L. Landes and Merle R. Sumption, Citizens Workbook for Evaluating78chool Building§_(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957). 2R. D. McCleary, Guide for Evaluating School Buildings (Cam- bridge, Mass.: New England School DevelOpment Council, 1949). 3C. W. Odell, Standards for the Evaluation Of Elementary (Secon- dary) School Buildings (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, 1950). 4Engelhardt, p. 50. 5Donald Leu, Floyd Parker, and Kenneth Glass, School Facility Obsolescense Survey (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960). 6"School Building Evaluator-Profile" (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research and Service, 1960). (Mimeographed.) 32 support are develOping seems obvious. The purpose of this study, how- ever, is tO suggest the place of financial planning in the total pro- cess and not to analyze its adequacy. It would be foolhardy for a planning group to develOp a long- range plan which far exceeded the financial ability Of the community. It would be just as wrong to start planning within a fixed financial ceiling, based on what had traditionally been considered the maximum financial support from the community. Herrick eXplains: The prOper procedure in planning a program of school-plant improvements is tO determine first of all what improvements are needed. This is done by analyzing the school program and projecting the school enrollment to determine needs, and by evaluating the existing facilities to determine how well they satisfy the needs. The recommendations are then formulated to close the gap, and the cost Of the recommended improve- ments is estimated. This determines the amount of money that is to be raised. The basic approach, then, is to base the long-range building program upon the educational needs of the community. It must then be tempered to fit the financial ability and support Of the community. Since this ability varies greatly between communities, it is not pos- sible to suggest any Specific approach. Sumption and Landes summarize the general steps for sound financial planning in this way: 1. Study the general financial situation Of education at the federal, state, and local levels. 2. Analyze the total financial needs and resources of the district. 3. Determine the prOportion of financial resources for building, after provision is made for the operation of the educational program. 1Herrick, p. 75. 33 4. Ascertain that the building program costs fall within the limits of allocated financial re- sources. 5. Formulate an adequate, feasible, and prOperly timed financing plan for the achievement Of the building program. There might be a tendency to relax and depend on a survey once it has been made. The importance Of continuity and annual review of the educational program, enrollment projection, building evaluations, and the financial situation is stressed by those writing in the field. In many instances this may be accomplished by a member of the local administrative staff responsible for school planning. McQuade cautions that adequate time must be allowed for such a survey, and that a year is not too much to allow for committee work. If such a survey is updated regularly, it may shape a number of future schools.2 The Long:Rapge Plan In a study Of California school districts, Hummel identified the major problem of superintendents as lack of time for educational planning.3 It would be eXpected that a study in any area Of the country would reveal a similar belief. Commenting on the urge to deal with the immediate problems at the cost Of long-range planning, Marshall states: 1Sumption and Landes, p. 130. ZMCQuade, pp. 52-53 0 3Robert E. Hummel, "Who Does the Educational Planning for Your Schools?" American School Board Journal, Vol. 144, NO. 3 (March, 1962), p. 33. 34 You might be tempted to concern yourself more with immediate steps than with the soundness Of the long- range plan. Don't. It's never more important to act pp!_than to act wisely on school needs. You'll worry about what might happen if growth is faster, or slower, than that projected. Don't. If the long- range plan is sound, faster growth simply means that Step 3 has to be advanced in 1968 instead Of 1970 as planned. You'll feel pressures to wait to acquire sites. Don't. Acre rates are cheaper than house lot rates.1 The school-plant survey does not automatically become the long- range plan. The survey itself is merely a collection of data which is helpful in formulating the long-range plan. It is then necessary to develOp criteria to be used when considering the data and develOping recommendations. The N.C.S.C.2 lists a set of seven principles useful in the formulation of recommendations. These are very similar to the six criteria found in Herrick,3 who suggests four steps in the develOp- ment of the long-range plan: 1. Preparation of a summary of the essential facts and conditions ascertained in the earlier portion of the study. 2. Preparation of a list of criteria to be used in testing tentative recommendations. 3. DevelOpment of a long-range plan which is consistent with the local facts and conditions and which meets the established criteria. 4. DevelOpment of recommendations for more immediate execution, which are consistent with the local facts and conditions, which meet the established criteria, and which are in harmony with the long-range plan.4 1Marshall, p. 36. 2National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, p. 13. 3Herrick, p. 82. 41bid., p. 81. 35 Both Terjeson1 and Hummel2 recommend the develOpment Of board policies to give direction and continuity to long-range planning. Such policy statements could very well include general principles or cri- teria to be followed in the develOpment and review of the long-range plan. Those involved in conducting the survey will probably be ex- pected to assist in develOping the long-range plan. In many cases the develOpment of the long-range plan is considered a phase of the school- plant survey. If the survey was conducted by consultants from outside the district, they would probably be expected to develop the long-range plan. Similarly, if the professional staff had conducted a self-sur- vey, they would be expected to develOp the long-range plan. Sumption and Landes cite the growing pOpularity of a joint effort of lay and professional peOple in develOping the long-range plan.3 This would be expected to follow up the COOperative survey which was discussed earlier. Regardless of who develOps the long-range plan, it is the re- Sponsibility Of the superintendent to see that such a plan is develOped and presented to the board of education. Sumption and Landes state: It then becomes the duty Of the board to adapt the program in whole or in part, with or without modifica- tions, or to reject it and call for another. Once a 1Thomas Terjeson, "Analysis of School-Plant Planning," American School Board Journal, Vol. 148, No. 1 (January, 1964), p. 9. ZHummel, p. 35. 3Sumption and Landes, p. 133. 36 program is adOpted, the superintendent assumes primary responsibility for its implementation, and reports progress and problems to his board of education. The board in turn makes decisions and enacts policy ordin- arily based, at least in part, on information and advice from the superintendent of schools.1 The long-range plan envisaged is the ultimate plan for the school-plant when the school community has reached full foreseeable develOpment. The importance Of determining ultimate holding capacity figures for undevelOped areas is obvious if such a plan is to be successful. The need for coordination with other governmental agencies in the develOpment of such a plan should be stressed. Not only can most city planning agencies assist in determining ultimate holding capaci- ties, their COOperation can be invaluable in develOping the long-range plan. A 1961 study of 110 cities with a pOpulation over 100,000 was conducted by Braun to determine the relationship between city planning agencies and the local school district. Some cOOperative planning was reported by 54 per cent, routine procedural relationships by 34 per cent, and pp_relationships whatsoever by 11 per cent. Legal conditions requiring joint efforts were reported by 28 per cent.2 Where a city planning agency exists, it is the logical coordin- ator of plans for schools, parks, recreation facilities, highways, existing and future land uses, and other important factors in community 11bid. 2Frank R. Braun, "A Study of Relationships in Planning for School Buildings Between the City Planning Agencies and School Author- ities in American Cities Over 100,000 Population" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1961). 37 develOpment. The importance of such COOperative planning is emphasized by Engelhardt,1 and writing in 1935, Holy stated: cinctly Intelligent city planning and school-plant plan- ning are necessarily intimately related. Neither city planning nor school building planning can be considered adequate unless each considers the other. City planning that does not consider the community's need for school buildings omits what should be among its major concerns. A school building plan that is not conceived in terms of the anticipated develOpment of the city as a whole is likely to be without a sound foundation.2 The desired objective of long-range planning is stated suc- by Terjeson: The result of this long-range planning, then, should produce for the school district a master plan which will serve as a guide for intelligent planning of individual buildings until the community has' reached the fullest develOpment foreseen. In this manner it becomes feasible for a district to make the fullest use possible of its buildings and to serve the community at all times.3 Site Selection and Acquisition The development of a long-range plan based on the findings of the survey has been discussed in the first two phases of district-wide planning. HOpefully this will have resulted in the develOpment of a master plan for future school sites in cOOperation with other community agencies. This master plan should be in harmony with, if not an inte- gral part of, the master plan for the entire community. 1Engelhardt, p. 47. 2Holy, p. 4. 5Thomas Terjeson, "The Four Major Problems in School Construc- tion," American School Board Journal, Vol. 150, No. 1 (January, 1965), p. 23. 38 This master plan for future sites is usually considered a part of the long-range, district-wide planning. The selection and acquisi- tion of specific sites is often treated as a separate area or included with the planning for an individual building project. It is included here because of the need for most school districts, particularly those that are experiencing rapid growth, to purchase sites well in advance of the need for the school-plant itself. A study of California districts experiencing such rapid growth was made by Wilsey. In the geographic area studied, the average site purchased two years in advance of construction resulted in a 20 per cent savings in cost, while a purchase ten years in advance of need resulted in an average savings of 60 per cent.1 Wilsey states: This study demonstrated the advance purchase of school sites in areas of rapid growth may effect sub- stantial economies since population growth, and the corresponding develOpment of land, cause land to ap- preciate in value at a more rapid rate than the com- bined influences of tax revenue loss and interest charges incurred by early site acquisition. School planners would be well advised to acquire sites while land is relatively undevelOped even though financing the purchase may require sale of bonds.2 This is not to suggest that all districts should purchase their sites ten years in advance of their needs--only that each district needs to develOp a plan which establishes within the long-range plan the priorities for various sites and sets up the steps or stages for 1Carl E. Wilsey, "The School Site: 1. Early Site Purchases Can Mean Savings," American School Board Journal, Vol. 142, No. 4 (April, 1961), p. 280 21bid., p. 29 39 acquiring those sites. An example of such a long-range plan can be found in Sumption and Landes.1 A great deal could be included about the importance of the site as a part of the total school plant and its role in helping to imple- ment the program. The N.C.S.C. explains, "A school site is more than a building location. It is an integral part of the education plant and one of the basic tools in the educational process."2 Herrick states: While the site must, of course, provide Space for the building, this is only part of its purpose. The outdoor facilities and the rooms and equipment within the building are part of the same school plant, and together they either facilitate or restrict and impede the develOpment and Operation of a good educational pro- gram. TO select a site which is educationally inade- quate is essentially the same kind of error as omitting some important room or space within the building. A school building otherwise well planned and well con; structed, but erected on a site which is poorly located or otherwise unsuitable, may actually represent a con- siderable waste of public funds. A number of factors have been identified which need to be con- sidered in the selection of sites. Sumption and Landes list four main characteristics: (1) suitable location, (2) adequate size, (3) desir- able tOpography, and (4) reasonable cost.’t Schneider listed twenty- five factors that affected school sites.5 Others writing in the field 1Sumption and Landes, pp. 140-147. 2National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, p. 23. 3Herrick, p. 235. 4Sumption and Landes, p. 169. 5Raymond C. Schneider, "Factors Affecting School Sites" (un- PUblished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1955). 40 tend to list some number between these two extremes, but differences are in organization of the factors rather than content. Each school district will need to develOp criteria for its own site selection as site needs will depend upon the educational program of the local school district, and policies concerning school size, at- tendance areas, organization, and other local district considerations. Perkins suggests that standards or criteria be set up in the areas of accessibility; environment; size; form and orientation; and tOpography and soil.1 The establishment of policies for site criteria has two major advantages according to Perkins: (1) if all know the standards and guidelines, there is less chance of a last minute upset, and (2) it is easier to dispose of a prOposal of little merit if there are offici- ally adOpted standards.2 The question arises as to what individuals or groups are utilized in considering the various factors to be considered in site selection. Those factors involving suitability for the educational program should certainly be decided upon by the professional educator or a consultant, but many of the technical aspects of determining the suitability for construction will require the technical competency of an architect and/or engineer. This fact is emphasized by MacConnell,3 and Herrick.4 1Lawrence B. Perkins and Walter D. Cocking, Schools (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1949), pp. 29-35. 21bid., p. 35. 3MacConnell, p. 119. 4Herrick, p. 244. 41 A number of scorecards are available for use in evaluating sites; but, as in the case of evaluative devices for school-plant, care should be exercised in their use. Their greatest value might lie in forcing the person evaluating to consider some factors he might other- wise neglect. Examples of such scorecards are those develOped by Engelhardt,1 Schneider,2 and Teachers College.3 The actual acquisition of prOperty is apt to be handled by the business department of the local school district after the school board has acted upon a recommendation to purchase from the superintendent. The point to be stressed here is the importance of board policy regard- ing site acquisition. Each school board must develOp its own policy to fit the local requirements. However, the following principles suggested by Engelhardt should receive thorough consideration. 1. The board of education should avoid delaying site purchase until the seller has the advantage of time as a result of strong public pressure for a new school. 2. Sites should be purchased years in advance of actual need. 3. Priority on site selection should be established by means of a fixed timetable of school building needs. 4. Site acquisition should be so administered that neither school board members nor their families will profit or appear to profit from the transactions. 5. Appraisals by recognized and competent real estate boards should be used as guides for price determin- ation. 1Engelhardt, pp. 186-88. 2"Schneider Site Evaluation Rating Sheet" (School Planning Laboratory, Stanford University, n.d.). 3"Rating Form for the Selection of School Sites" (Institute of Field Studies, Teachers College, Columbia University, n.d.). 42 6. The board of education should, before public an- nouncement, use the services of a competent, estab- lished, and reliable land buyer in securing Options and prices. 7. The board of education should avail itself of its right of condemnation if prices greatly exceed ap- praisals, or if the owner refuses to submit a price. It should be pointed out again that the long-range plan must be reviewed periodically. To indiscriminately purchase prOperty on the basis of a master plan completed much earlier would be foolhardy. The conditions which indicated the need for a school site at the time the plan was formulated should be reviewed to determine if the need still exists or possibly has changed. It is obvious that some risk is in- volved in the purchase of sites before the need has develOped. The financial risk is small if good procedures have been followdd, and it is doubtful if a loss would be incurred if the site was not needed for school use and was sold for some other use. It is probable that any financial loss would be more than Offset by the savings accruing from other sites purchased as part of the master plan. Planning the Individual School-Plant District-wide planning provides the foundation upon which ef- fective planning of the individual school-plant project must rest. The school-plant survey provides the necessary information for the develOp- ment of a long-range plan. This long-range plan should include a master plan for future school-plant sites, and through a process of careful selection and acquisition procedures, the needed sites can be I 1Engelhardt, p. 192. 43 purchased which meet the criteria established by the local district. Without this foundation, the individual School-plant may be handi- capped before its planning begins. The planning of the individual school-plant will be considered in three phases: (1) educational planning; (2) architectural planning, design, and construction; and (3) equipping and occupying. Educational Planning The term educational planning Should not be confused with the total school-plant planning process. As used here, educational planning refers to the planning necessary to produce a statement of the facili- ties and qualities that a particular prOposed building should include. This statement is usually referred to as the "educational specifica- tions" for the building. It also involves close cOOperation with the architect to insure the necessary facilities are provided for in the drawings and specifications prepared by the architect. Herrick1 visual- izes this as an eight-step process, while the N. C.S.C. lists five: 1. Review of educational planning, 2. Calculation Of teaching-station and other space requirements, 3. Determination of quantitative and qualitative aspects of each room or Space, 4. Preparation of written educational Specifications, and 5. Review of architectural plans and reinterpretation of the educational specifications to the architect when necessary. 1Herrick, p. 111. 2National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, p. 14. 44 Educational planning, and educational specifications in par- ticular, are receiving increased attention by school planners. A re- view of the literature reveals that most articles appearing in periodi- cals are concerned with this phase of the planning process rather than with district-wide planning or the total planning process. Major con- cerns are: (1) what is the purpose of educational specifications, (2) what Should be included in them, (3) who should be involved in their develOpment, and (4) what is the relationship of the educator and the architect? Decisions growing out of educational planning must be communi- cated to others, particularly the architect. In describing educational Specifications, the N. C.S.C. Guide states: They clearly state all decisions growing out of the educational planning process. The educational specifications pull together the many policy decisions to be furnished the architect by the school district as a primary guide in the develOpment of building plans and specifications. The educational Specifica- tions can be considered the owner's general Statement of the problem which the architect is to solve. It is imperative, therefore, that the document be organized and written for the architect in language he can under- stand. There is unanimous agreement On the importance of written educa- tional specifications for any major school building project. A 1963 Study by Roaden stated that written educational specifications are vital, and revealed that while there use is increasing, it is still not wideSpread.2 Hummel reports, "It would appear that although the 11bid., p. 15. 2Ova Paul Roaden, "The Essential Elements of Educational Spec- ifications for School Plant Facilities" (unpublished Doctor's disser- tation, University of Tennessee, 1963). 45 literature for several decades has advocated the preparation of written educational specifications as a prerequisite to school building plan- ning, we have not achieved a desirable level of acceptance of this idea among educators."1 Content of Educational Specifications While there is general agreement on the content of educational Specifications, there is a wide range in the detail included and organ- ization used by various authors. Detailed outlines appear in books by the A.A.S.A.,2 Engelhardt,3 and M'acConnell.4 A more general outline appears in the N.C.S.C. Guide,5 and in articles by Wilson,6 Lyman,7 and Gardner.8 Roaden identified what he termed the seventeen essential 1Hummel, p. 34. 2American Association of School Administrators, Planning America's . . . , pp. 172-174. 3Engelhardt, pp. 73-79. 4Macaonnen, pp. 156-157. 5National Council on School House Construction, p. 15. 6Russell E. Wilson, "Educational Specifications," The Nationb Schools, Vol. 56, No. 5 (November, 1955), p. 76. 7W. Lyman, "Taking the Mystery Out of Educational Specifica- tion Writing," American School Board Journal, Vol. 145, No. 3 (September, 1962), pp. 25-26. 8Dwayne E. Gardner, "The 'DO'S' and 'Don'ts' of Educational Specifications," American School Board Journal, Vol. 148, No. 6 (June, 1964), pp. 18-190 46 elements of educational specifications and included six others that, although not essential, Should be included.1 Herrick groups the areas to be included under four headings: (1) list of desired facilities, (2) qualitative requirements, (3) limitations, and (4) background information.2 Wilson suggests three major areas: (1) philosophy and curriculum, (2) administrative organization, and (3) non-instructional service requirements.3 In em- phasizing the importance of program, Wilson states, "The real guts of educational specifications will be contained in the sections devoted to the description of the educational program and how it is intended to operate."4 Parker and Featherstone explain that the amount and type of in- formation will vary with each set of specifications but list fifteen general items which they feel should be included in all educational Specifications and an additional seven items which should be included for each school program or subject area.5 MacConnell, in a recent article, lists sixty-seven questions for use as a check list in educational planning. They are divided into 1Roaden. 2Herrick. 3Wilson, p. 76. 4E2li°t p. 79. 5Floyd Parker and Richard Featherstone, "How to Specify Educa- tional Needs for a New School," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 73, No. 1 (January, 1964), pp. 49-50. 47 decisions regarding educational planning, the architect, the Site, and the educational environment.1 As was the case in the district-wide planning, there is indica- tion of an increasing circle of involvement in the planning of an indi- vidual school plant. There are some obvious differences in organization patterns suggested, and some dissent on the use of lay citizens in this phase of planning. The continuum stretches from the develOpment of edu- cational Specifications by the superintendent and the architect to com- plete involvement by all those who will use the building. In general, the preparation of educational specifications is considered the task of the professional educator and those who will use the building. This view is well Stated by Rice: "There can be no effi- cient planning of educational specifications unless those who use the plant, those who live in it, have a part in setting up the specifica- tions. This means, of course, the custodian, the teacher, and to some extent the pupil."2 The use of lay citizens is recommended by Sumption and Landes,3 and is also mentioned in an article by Lyman,4 an architect. Gardner takes issue with the use of lay citizens and states: 1James D. MacConnell, "Sixty-seven Questions to Keep Out Plan- ning Errors," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 73, No. 1 (January, 1964), pp. 55-57. 2Arthur H. Rice, "Designing the School Plant as a Learning En- vironment," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 59, No. 1 (January, 1957), p. 63. 3Sumption and Landes, p. 156. aLyman, p. 25. 48 Since the develOpment of educational specifications is an educational problem, it should be the responsi- bility of the professional educators. This basic principle should not be violated, for a multitude of reasons. Even though some communities have involved lay citizens and students, justification for doing so is rather remote from strictly educational and archi- tectural viewpoints. It is suggested that lay citizens not be involved at this stage of the educational plan- ning for the mere purpose of promoting good public rela- tions.1 Castaldi visualizes a three-member team composed of the super- intendent, the educational consultant, and the architect, which has the assistance of a large advisory committee. The advisory committee would be composed of faculty, non-professional staff, and students, and would serve as a channel for Staff suggestions to the team. The use of lay citizens on the advisory team would be Optional, but Castaldi points out that the board already represents citizens.2 Pipher, an architect concerned with educational specifications, describes the team as the superintendent, staff, and the architect. "The superintendent, the staff, and the architect all form a team; none can be left out. Matters of judgment, general guidance and basic prin- ciple, after deliberation with the staff, are the job of the Superin- tendent."3 Briggs describes the process followed in planning a high school for Parma, Ohio. Of Special interest is the pre-planning stage and the lGardner, p. 18. 2Basil Castaldi, "Profile of Your Next Building," Overview, Vol. 4, No. 6 (June, 1963), p. 31-32. 3Wesley Pipher, "Is School Planning for Superintendents Only? Emphatically No!" Audio-visual Instruction, Vol. 7, No. 6 (June, 1962), P. 379. 49 later use of departmental chairmen. Lay citizens are involved through the use of a hearing after educational specifications have been pre- pared by the professional staff, and before adOption of the educational specifications by the board of education.1 There is general agreement that a person knowledgeable in the planning process is an essential member of the planning team. This person may be a member of the local professional staff or may come from outside the professional staff. There is an increasing use of the educational consultant, who may be employed to assist the local dis- trict in both district-wide planning and in educational planning. This is especially true of smaller districts, where budgets and staff size do not allow the degree of specialization necessary for the employment of a school-plant specialist on the local staff. The educational consultant is an educator and usually can be found in state departments of education and education departments of colleges or universities. There are also individuals and firms Operat- ing independently, and some architectural firms have educational con- sultants on their staffs. The educational consultant can be valuable to the planning team in many ways. He should serve as the resource member of the team and can be especially helpful in organization and procedure. He may also provide assistance in analyzing emerging trends and concepts in educa- tional program and school-plant. Care should be taken to specify what 1Paul W. Briggs, "New High School's Staff Planning and Team- work," American School and University, Vol. 35, No. 9 (May, 1963), pp 0 37-400 50 the duties of the consultant will be. A detailed checklist of what these duties might be is found in the School Building and Planning Handbook.1 In a 1953 study, Edwards pointed out the need of the local dis- trict for assistance in the preparation of educational Specifications and Observed that the work of the architect is facilitated by the use of an educational consultant. He suggested that local districts should train their own personnel in the planning process and employ additional personnel if necessary.2 walling, in a 1960 study, found that a major responsibility of school planning Specialists was the develOpment of educational specifi- cations.3 In 1961, Hummel found school planning directors in many of the large districts with over 15,000 pupils and also found that these were the districts where written educational specifications were most frequently prepared.4 The point to be emphasized is the importance of having a person knowledgeable in school planning as a member of the planning team. In 1Engelhardt, pp. 17-24. 2John D. Edwards, "The Evolving Role of the Educational Consul- tant in School Planning" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1953). 3Robert Edman Welling, "The Role of the District Employee in Charge of School Planning and Constructiod'(unpublished Doctor's dis- sertation, University of Southern California, 1960). 4Robert E. Hummel, "Educational Planning Procedures for School Building Construction" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1961). 51 those instances where the local staff is unable to provide such a per- son, the use Of an educational consultant from outside the staff is advocated. Relationship of the Educator and Architect There seems to be consensus that the architect should be a mem- ber of the team which does the educational planning and prepares the written educational specifications. Some concern is expressed in de- fining the roles of the educator and the architect. In describing the content of educational Specifications, McQuade states: Educational specifications, it is generally agreed, should describe as carefully as possible the amount of Space that is needed, and the uses it will be put to, including the equipment it has to house--but they should not attempt to shape that space. That would be like telling a doctor not only what ails you but what color pill you want. Few architects are educational experts; most will appreciate the Opportunity to ask "dumb" questions about education, but they will cherish a superintendent and a board who answer these questions not with exact descriptions of rooms but with ideas for rooms.1 But just as some are concerned that the educator will say too much, there are those who are concerned that he will not say enough. Rice quotes the noted architect Perkins as saying: The educator can default the educational program by making no statement. If he does, he has, in fact, said that the conventional norm is the program. The archi- tect in embodying the conventional norm becomes the educational planner which he should not be but some- times must. lMcQuade, p. 53. 2Arthur H. Rice, "Not Enough Time for Planning," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 70, NO. 6 (December, 1962), p. 35. 52 Wilson cautions the educator to remain within his field by say- ing, "While playing architect, educators overlook their real role in building schools--that is to give the architect the best description possible of how the building will be used and the characteristics of the users."1 He states further, "educational specifications are a written description of how a building is £g_Operate; architectural Specifications are a written description of how a building is 52.1225."2 An important item in educational planning is the allowance of adequate time to carry out through planning. The reliance of educa- tional planning on the district-wide survey is certainly evidenced here. If the need has not been identified and planned for, the local school district may find itself with an immediate problem and lack time to do the necessary educational planning. While the length of time required will vary widely, estimates range from a minimum of two or three months to a year. Engelhardt states, "It is the experience of the author that ample time should be left for preparing the program of educational requirements to make it as definitive as possible, thus leaving no educational matters to the architect's guess of what is required."3 Architectural Planning, Design, and Construction Just as district-wide planning is the foundation for planning the individual school building, educational planning is the base for 1Wilson, p. 73. 21bid., p. 74. 3Engelhardt, p. 46. 53 the architectural planning which follows. The educator has had the pri- mary role up to this point; but with the transmittal of board approved specifications to the architect, the architect assumes the primary role which he maintains until completion of the building. Since this study is primarily concerned with the planning pro- cess, little time will be spent on the technical aspects of architec- tural planning and construction. Major areas to be considered will be (1) the selection of an architect, and (2) the phases into which architectural services may be classified, with a brief description of each. Selection of the Architect There are two general methods for selecting an architect: (1) design competition, and (2) Open selection on the basis of general qualifications. The design competition is rarely used because it is time consuming and cumbersome. In addition, the unique problems of school planning call for close cOOperation between educator and archi- tect through a relatively long planning period, which the design com- petition method cannot provide. If Open selection is used, it may be necessary to do prelimin- ary screening with a questionnaire. A standard questionnaire has been develOped jointly by the N.C.S.C. and the American Institute of Archi- tects.1 Following preliminary screening, it will probably be desirable to hold a series of interviews, examine other work of the architects, 1"Questionnaire for Use in Selecting School Building Architects," Document No. B-431 (Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Architects, n.d.). 54 and talk with their former clients. Both the N.C.S.C.1 and Herrick2 stress the importance of fairness and courtesy in conducting the interview. Herrick feels that final selection should be determined on the basis of these important factors: 1. Design ability--the talent and skill necessary to answer the functional needs defined in the educa- tional and to create an aesthetically pleasing building. 2. Technical competence--the knowledge, experience, and ability required for the translation of the design into the completed building. From this competence results the durability and practical efficiency Of the structure and its low mainten- ance cost. 3. Executive reliabilipy--the competence of the architect to administer the project efficiently and fairly.3 It is not possible to over-emphasize the importance of select- ing the best architect available. Upon the architect rests the final responsibility Of capping months of effort with the best possible building. Selection of an incompetent or unimaginative architect can nullify much that has gone before and prevent the planning process from reaching fruition. McQuade comments, "Choosing an architect is not nearly so difficult as choosing a wife--but it sometimes seems so. This may be because while peOple need architects, they want wives."4 1National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, p. 17. 2 Herrick, p. 162. 3Ibid. 4McQuade, p. 55. 55 There is some difference of Opinion as to whether an architec- tural specialist Should be used. Rice States, More and more, the school architect is a specialist. He must know not only architecture but also some of the problems, characteristics, and purposes of education-- particularly the processes of learning and the effect of environment upon the child--before he is ready to plan the learning environment for educational proce- dures. Caudill, a well-known architect who has designed many schools, takes exception with the Specialist approach. He points out that many very famous schools were first attempts at school design by that par- ticular firm. He believes, "The important qualifications of the archi- tect are superior Skill, the desire to do the best he can, and the willingness to cOOperate with other planners."2 Phases Of Architectural Services The services Of the architect can be divided into several phases. Although not absolutely identical, they usually resemble closely the six suggested by Herrick: (l) the programming phase, (2) the design phase, (3) the working drawing and Specifications phase, (4) the bidding and contract award phase, (5) the construction phase, and (6) the furnish- ing phase.3 The balance of this section will give a brief description of the activities of each phase. The programming phase actually includes the planning process to this point. It is the major responsibility of the educator and 1Rice, "Designing the School . . . ," p. 63. 2Caudill, p. 190. 3Herrick, pp. 166-67. 56 results in a determination of the extent and nature of the school-plant facilities needed. As has been suggested, the involvement of the archi- tect in the survey and educational planning will vary greatly. The importance of sound educational planning to the architect is described by Cerny. The function of an educational building is the armature upon which the building is molded. Function dictates not only the size, number, and relation of interior spaces, but also the shape and nature of en- closing surfaces. Function defines the quality and quantity of artificial light, the density (sound ab- sorption) of enclosing surfaces, the texture, and surface characteristics of all wearing surfaces.1 In the design phase the architect translates the educational Specifications into a design for the school. From diagrams showing possible organization of the Space requirements, the architect prepares the preliminary studies. This will usually include the layout of the building and the Site, its general appearance, method of construction, and approximate cost. The architect may ask the board of education to approve a diagrammatic plan if several approaches are being considered. Completion of the prelhminary studies will then follow this approval. The importance of board approval of preliminary studies is em- phasized by Herrick.2 This fixes the basic design and method of con- struction and authorizes the architect to proceed with the develOpment of working drawings and specifications. Changes made after the appro- val of the preliminary studies are difficult and costly. 1Robert G. Cerny, "Educational Use Shapes the Structure," American School and University, Vol. 37, No. 3 (November, 1964), p. 29. 2Herrick, pp. 184-185. 57 In answer to the question, what is design, Walter Cocking states: To me, school design means interpreting a school program and the characteristics of the pupils in terms of building spaces--using suitable materials in appro- priate ways, and providing for visual, hearing, and bodily comfort and efficiency--so that the resulting structure is functionally useful, artistically pleasing, and combines all elements into a beautiful, comfort- able, efficient, and economical building. Good design, then, gives to every structure both a healthy body and an immortal soul.1 In the working drawings and Specifications phase, the prelim- inary studies are translated into the detailed drawings and specifica- tions from which the building can be constructed. This often involves the work of a number of specialists working under the architect. Engineers work on structural framing, heating, ventilating, plumbing, and electrical installations. A landscape architect may be employed to develOp plans for the develOpment of the school grounds. Approval of the working drawings and specifications by the board indicates the board's acceptance of the architect's work preparatory to building construction. Most states have passed laws requiring public agencies to ob- tain competitive bids on all construction over a set amount. Since this procedure is regulated and has become standardized, it will not be discussed in detail here. Much the same can be said about the awarding of contracts and the legal requirements placed upon both the contractor and the school board. No effort will be made to discuss these documents, but it is helpful to recognize their place in the overall process. 1952 1Walter D. Cocking, "As I See It," The School Executive, April, 58 During the construction phase the actual physical construction of the building takes place. The results Of months of planning now be- come visible. Two areas of concern during this phase need to be dis- cussed briefly--supervision of construction and the completion and acceptance of the building. Supervision of construction is the responsibility of the archi- tect. He must assure that materials and workmanship are in accordance with those required in the drawings and specifications. This necessi- tates frequent inspections, and in most major building projects a full time "clerk-of—theeworks" is employed to be alert for defective materials and workmanship. As construction nears completion, the architect will normally prepare a careful list of deficiencies which need correcting. This may sometimes be referred to as a "punch list." After these correc- tions have been made, the building is ready for final inSpection by the authorized representatives of the owner, the architect, and the con- tractor. When everything is satisfactorily completed, the owner for- mally accepts the building, and the construction phase is complete. Normally, that equipment which is attached to the building, or is permanently connected to utility lines, is selected by the architect and installed as a part of the building contract. Movable items are usually selected by the school staff. Because of its importance, the selection of furniture and equipment will be considered as the third major step of planning for an individual building project. 59 Equipping and Occupyingyrhe Plant During the design and construction of the building, the leader- ship role has rested with the architect. Now that the physical struc- ture has been completed, the educator again assumes the leadership role for the purpose of equipping and occupying the plant. In many cases the completion of the building may be considered the termination of the planning process. This section will attempt to show the impOr- tance of this major step in the total planning process. This step may best be considered as a series of smaller Steps. The N.C.S.C. includes these five: (1) selection of furniture and equipment, (2) selection and training of staff and pupils in the use of the building, (3) presenting the building to the community, (4) assembling and keeping building documents, and (5) evaluation fol- lowing use.1 Just as poor architectural planning can nullify months of care- ful educational planning, so can the selection of poorly designed fur- niture and equipment reduce the effectiveness of the completed building. Fowler points out that furniture and equipment usually average 10 per cent of the school-plant outlay, but that in addition to the importance of the funds involved, is the critical effect that furniture and equip- ment have upon the quality and effectiveness of the educational program. He feels that selection and acquisition are far more than routine busi- ness procedures.2 1National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, pp. 18-19. 2Fred M. Fowler, "Selection and Acquisition of School Furniture," American School and Universipy, Vol. 35, No. 9 (May, 1963), p. 51. 60 Who should select furniture and equipment? Fowler argues that the users of the items specified should have a voice in their selection, and in the case of a new building this might be done by the same group that develOps the educational Specifications.1 A COOperative approach is suggested by Engelhardt2 and Herrick3 with emphasis on the involve- ment of teachers. The advantages of centralized purchasing and standardization of furniture and equipment are discussed in an article by McGrath and Buehring.4 They suggest a procedure for determining the standard, which involves department heads, the assistant superintendent for in- struction, and the purchasing department. NO mention is made of the teacher, but it is hOped they are involved by the department heads. The major advantage of such standardization of type and color is the ability to transfer furniture between rooms and buildings and the ease of replacement. Gilliland points out that "Too frequently a well established, moderately priced and reasonably attractive furniture is bought and re- bought by the school system, regardless of the use to which it is to be put or the merits of other lines."5 Although new types are being 1;p;g,, pp. 52-53. 2Engelhardt, p. 144. 3Herrick, p. 212. 4McGrath and Buehring, p. 50. SGilliland, p. 28. 61 develOped which may be more flexible, more comfortable, more attractive, and more efficient, if they are more expensive; they are often hur- riedly rejected. Gilliland feels there is little excuse for Spoiling the effects of environmental control, for which the educator has spent so much money, by selecting the wrong furniture and equipment.1 The importance of establishing criteria for the selection of furniture and equipment should be stressed. This could involve con- siderable technical detail for the local district, but the principles advocated by Herrick may seem so obvious that they are often overlooked: (1) should fit the program, (2) Should be safe and healthful, (3) Should be durable and economical, and (4) should be complete for the entire building.2 Few products can be purchased today without accompanying litera- ture showing diagrams and complete step-by-Step instructions to assure understanding and the best possible effectiveness or functioning of the product. Yet many new school buildings are simply Opened with the staff arriving barely in front of the students. Increased emphasis is being placed on the importance of preparing not only the instructional staff, but the service staff and pupils for the most effective use of the building. The length and extent of such preparation will vary widely ac- cording to the complexity of the building, the size of the staff, and their involvement in the planning of the building. Each local school 1Ibid. 2Herrick, pp. 212-213. 62 district should assure that the preparation and in-service programs are adequate for their particular situation. Presenting the Building to the Public This involves more than a formal dedication of the building. It affords the administration an Opportunity to inform the community about the educational program and the new building's role in helping to carry out that program. This can be done through the use of news stories, brochures, and Open houses. It is also an Opportunity to eXpress ap- preciation to those who have contributed to the planning of the building and may have devoted many hours of voluntary time. Assembling and Keeping Building Documents It is important that Operating manuals, parts lists, guarantees, bonds, and other documents relating to the new building be prOperly and safely filed for future use. Some of these documents are short term while others will become increasingly important in the future. Evaluation Following Use It is reasonable to expect some difficulties with the building and its complicated equipment. The school administrators should be alert for these defects so that they may be corrected during the guarantee period. Much more important is how well the building accomplishes what it was designed to do. Since in most larger school districts, the 1>lanning and construction of school-plants is an on-going process, lessons learned in a particular building should be helpful in avoiding sinflJar pitfalls in future buildings. 63 Summary In this chapter the total school-plant planning process has been traced from the determination of need to the occupying of the completed building. Several cautions Should be expressed to alert the reader that this process is not considered to be the panacea which will solve all educational problems. First, is the dominance of the professional staff in determin- ing the success or failure of the educational program. A good staff may accomplish the educational objectives in what seem to be hOpeleSS facilities. Conversely, a poor staff may fail in accomplishing their Objectives in what seem to be outstanding facilities. What is sug- gested is that the school-plant is a tool for the professional Staff and that an efficient, functional tool is more helpful than an inef- ficient one. The tremendous importance of staff attitudes was reported in parallel studies byMonacel1 and Neubacher.2 They studied teachers and pupils who were moved from older buildings into new buildings which re- placed them. Almost no change was found on the part of teachers in regard to curriculum attitudes and values, facility preferences, and 1Louis David Monacel, "The Effects of Planned Educational Facil- ities Upon Curriculum Experiences and Related Attitudes and Aspirations of Teachers, Pupils, and Parents in Selected Urban Elementary Schools" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, wayne State University, 1963). 2James Howard Neubacher, "A Study of the Effects of Existing and New Educational Facilities Upon the Teachers, Pupils, and Commun- ity in Terms of Curriculum Experiences and Related Attitudes and Aspirations in an Urban Elementary School Area" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, WSyne State University, 1963). 64 teaching patterns. The pupils enthusiasm for the new facility was short lived as they recognized an unchanged pattern of instruction. A major recommendation of the studies was a thorough orientation pro- gram for a staff which is about to use new school-plants. A second caution is that merely completing a large number of Steps in the process of planning for school-plants does not automati- cally insure better buildings. This was revealed in a study by Camp- bell. His Study found that wide participation and prudent selection of survey procedures was more helpful than a large number of steps. The importance of teacher participation in school-plant planning was reported, and the greatest weakness was found to be the failure to prepare written educational specifications.1 In spite of these important qualifications, it is the belief of the writer that a review of the literature has indeed revealed a gen- eralized approach to the school-plant planning process. The general- ized observations are presented in an outline form and served as the basis for construction of the questionnaire. Generalized Observations of the School-Plant Planning Process A. General Each local school district is reaponsible for develOping an educational program which meets the needs of the community which it serves 0 1Stanley Clinton Campbell, "Relationships Between the Compre- hensiveness of School Plant Planning Procedures and the Quality of Re- sultant School Plants" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University Of Wisconsin, 1961). I 65 A good school building is one which implements the program and provides the prOper learning environment. Each school district must plan the school-plant which meets the needs of that particular district--there is no Standard plan for a good school. The total school-plant planning process is more than the plan- ning of one building. It is a series of inter-related steps ranging from a determination Of need to the actual occupying of the completed, furnished building. The school-plant planning process can be divided into two major areas: (1) district-wide planning, and (2) planning the individual school plant. 1. District-wide planning; District-wide planning involves the develOpment Of a long-range plan, based upon a survey of the needs of the school district. A. The school survey: The major purpose of the survey is to identify the present and future needs of the School district. Each school district should conduct a survey periodically. It is essential that Surveys be updated and kept current. This Should be done annually. School surveys are generally classified as to type according to who is involved in conducting them: (1) outside expert, (2) self-survey, and (3) cOOperative survey. 66 The COOperative survey is considered to be of most value to the school district and should be used unless the particular situation will not allow it. Surveys are classified according to content: (1) comprehensive, and (2) partial. Most school-plant surveys are partial surveys and cannot be considered comprehensive in the true sense of the word. School-plant surveys are generally concerned with: (l) a determination of needs, (2) an analysis of exist- ing resources, and (3) the develOpment of a long-range plan. 1. Determination of needs: Qualitative needs are concerned with the educational program desired by the community and must precede a study of the school-plant. Written policies Should spell out courses of study, size of class, size of school, and internal organization. Quantitative needs are the number of Stu- dents to be housed. Annual enrollment projections should be made. The percentage of survival technique is commonly used but must be adjusted in rapidly changing communities. 2. Analysis of existing resources: Existing re- sources of a district are usually considered to 67 be the existing school-plant and the financial resources of the district. Existing school-plant should be evaluated in terms of (a) educational program, (b) physi- cal structure, (c) location, and (d) capacity. The most important question is the adequacy of the school-plant to carry out the desired program. Physical structure concerns are for sound- ness, fire safety, sanitation, and the mechani- cal and electrical systems. Many older buildings are no longer located prOperly for attendance areas. Capacity figures are needed for all build- ings. Several techniques are used in computing the capacity of secondary buildings. Many cOOperative surveys utilize lay citizens along with consultants in building evaluation. Evaluative devices are available, but their value is doubtful except for use by lay citizens or inexperienced school-plant workers. It may be desirable to have an engineer and/or architect evaluate buildings for struc- tural soundness and mechanical systems. Financial planning should start with an analysis of the needs, rather than the finances which have been traditionally available. 68 3. The long-range plan: The long-range plan is based upon the findings of the survey. It is necessary to develOp criteria for use in develOping the long-range plan. Board policies are needed to give direction. The long-range plan is usually develOped by those who conducted the survey. The superintendent should present the plan to the board for approval, modification, or rejection. The long-range plan should be coordinated with other public agencies: parks and recrea- tion, traffic, public service, etc. The natural coordinating agency for this in most cities is the local planning department or agency. It may be desirable to have the long-range School plan become a part of the city master plan. Site selection and acquisition: Board policies should Spell out the criteria for site selection. All sites should be purchased in accordance with the long-range plan if possible. In rapidly growing districts, sites should be pur- chased well in advance Of need while land is relatively undevelOped. Priorities should be develOped, and a schedule of purchases established. 69 Educational adequacy should be determined by the professional educator. Technical help may be required from an architect, engineer, or landscape architect. Assistance should be requested from planning agencies. Board policy Should Spell out acquisition proce- dures, and the use of appraisals, real estate agents, and legal counsel. Planning the individual school-plant: Each individual school- plant should fit the long-range plan and the site master plan, if possible. Planning the individual School-plant can be considered in three steps: educational planning; architectural plan- ning, design, and construction; and equipping and occupying. A. Educational planning: Educational planning refers to the planning necessary to produce a statement of the facilities and qualities that a particular prOposed building Should include. This statement is usually called the educational Specifications. The educational specifications are the educator's general Statement of the problem which the architect is to solve. Educational specifications should be written. Educational Specifications should include as a mini- mum: (1) list of desired facilities, (2) qualitative re- quirements, (3) limitations, and (4) background informa- tion. 70 Those who will use the building Should be involved in planning it. This is especially true of the teach- ing staff. Lay citizens are sometimes used, often for purposes of keeping the community informed. There is no gen- eral agreement as to the use of lay citizens in educa- tional planning. The use of an outside consultant is desirable un- less a person knowledgeable in the planning process is a member of the local staff. The architect should be a member of the team devel- Oping educational specifications. The educational Specifications should serve as a challenge to the architect. They should not limit him by Specifying exact dimensions or descriptions of rooms but rather ideas for rooms. When adequate educational Specifications are not prepared by the educator, educational planning is being defaulted to the architect. Educators should not play architect, nor should architects play the role of the educator. The length of time required to develOp educational Specifications will vary, but adequate time Should be allowed to prepare the best possible educational Spec- ifications. Time required may range from two or three months to a year or more, depending on the complexity of the project. 71 B. Architectural planning, design, and construction: Major areas of concern which were considered: (1) selection of the architect, and (2) phases of architectural service. 1. Selection of the architect: There are two gen- eral methods of selecting an architect: design competition, and Open selection on the baSiS of general qualifications. Most architects for school buildings are selected by the Open selection method. Preliminary screening should be done with a standard questionnaire. Architects interviewed should be treated equally and fairly. Selection should be based upon design ability, technical competence, and executive reliability. There is a difference of Opinion as to the use of a Specialized or "school architect" or an architect who has not had extensive experi- ence in school design. Phases of architectural services: Architectural planning must be based on sound educational planning. The architect should be involved in educa- tional planning. The design phase is the translation of edu- cational specifications into a design for the school. 72 Preliminary studies fix the basic design and method of construction and should be ap- proved by the board. Working drawings and specifications are de- velOped by the architect and technical experts, and provide the plans from which the building can be constructed. Approval of working drawings and Specifica- tions by the board indicates approval of the architect's work prior to construction.. Bidding and contract awarding are well stan- dardized in most States by legal requirements. Supervision of construction is the respon- sibility of the architect. A "clerk-of-the-works" is usually employed on a major building project. A list of deficiencies should be prepared by the architect as work nears completion. Final inspection is usually carried out by authorized representatives Of the owner, the architect, and the contractor. Formal acceptance by the board completes the construction phase. C. Equipping and occupying: Normally, furniture and equip- ment that is attached to the building or permanently connected by utility lines is selected by the architect. 73 Selection of other furniture and equipment is usually the responsibility of the local school board. Selection of the poorly designed furniture and equipment can reduce the effectiveness of the new school-plant. Those who will use the furniture should have a voice in its selection. Centralized purchasing results in substantial savings. Standardization of items purchased may be used in such a system. The use of standardized items may result in the continued purchase of moderately priced items although they are not the best items available. Criteria should be develOped for furniture selec- tion and a procedure develOped which assures cOOpera- tive selection. Before a new building is put into Operation, it is necessary to orient the staff and students to its best use. The length of time required to orient the Staff will depend on the extent of their involvement in its planning. Opening a new building should be more than a formal dedication. An effort should be made to acquaint the community with the educational program and how the building can help in implementing that program. 74 All documents such as Operating manuals, parts lists, guarantees, and bonds Should be prOperly and safely filed for future use. The staff should be alert for structural and mechanical defects so that they may be repaired or re- placed during the guarantee period. An evaluation by those using the building will be helpful in the planning of new buildings. CHAPTER III THE SCHOOL-PLANT PLANNING PROCESS IN THE SELECTED DISTRICTS A Description of the Districts In order to understand the school-plant planning process being carried out in the selected school districts, it is first necessary to understand something of the districts themselves. Information is in- cluded on five aSpects of each of the districts: (1) relationship to a metrOpolitan area, (2) geographic size, (3) enrollment, (4) financial ability and effort, and (5) existing school plant. It is beyond the sc0pe of this report to develOp a thorough, comprehensive description of each of these districts. Each district would require a volume by itself. The attempt is merely to sketch enough background to place the school-plant planning process in perspec- tive for the districts included in the study. Relationship to MetrOpolitan Areas Of the twelve districts studied, seven (Livonia, Dearborn, Pon- tiac, Royal Oak, Wayne, Taylor, and Waterford) are located in the iDetrOit Standard MetrOpolitan Statistical Area. The other five dis- tricts (Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Saginaw), each serve the largest city in a separate standard metrOpolitan statistical area . 75 76 This becomes important in understanding the character of the school districts. A standard metrOpolitan statistical area is de- fined as: . . . a county or group of contiguous counties which contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or "twin cities" with a combined pOpulation of at least 50,000. In addition to the county, or counties, containing such a city or cities, contig- uous counties are included in a standard metrOpolitan statistical area if, according to certain criteria, they are essentially metrOpolitan in character and are socially and economically integrated with the central city. Thus, the seven districts in the Detroit Standard MetrOpolitan Statistical Area are fractional parts of the larger Detroit MetrOpoli- tan Area. The other five districts, however, are relatively indepen- dent communities whose residents, for the most part, live and work within the school district. Geographic Size The districts range in size from twelve to fifty-one square miles. As seen in Table 1, only three of the twelve districts have made substantial increases in geographic Size within the past ten years. Lansing, which was eleventh in Size in 1956 with Sixteen square miles, has tripled to its present fifty-one square miles. Grand Rapids has added fifteen square miles, and Kalamazoo eight. As a group, the dis- tricts covered 334 square miles in 1956 compared to the present 394 square miles. 1U.S., Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of POpulation and 1Housing: 1960. Census Tracts, Final Report PHC (1)-73 (Washington, 13.0.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962). 77 Table 1. Geographic Size in Square Miles, 1956-1965 Increase in District . 1956 , 1965 Square Miles 1 Increase Lansing 16 51 35 218.8 Flint 45 45 0 0 Livonia 42 42 0 0 waterford 42 42 0 0 Grand Rapids 26 41 15 57.7 Pontiac 39 39 0 O Kalamazoo 25 33 8 32.0 Taylor 26 26 0 0 Wayne 23 24 l 4.3 Dearborn 21 22 l 4.8 Saginaw l7 l7 0 0 Royal Oak 12 12 0 0 TOTALS 334 394 60 18.0 Four of the districts state that there is some possibility of additional expansion through the annexation of adjacent primary dis- tricts, but in each case the area which might be annexed is relatively small. Enrollment While geographic size is important to the school planner in terms of future growth and the larger area to be served, his major con- cern is existing and projected enrollment. Table 2 illustrates that the twelve districts have grown from 208,345 pupils in 1956 to 299,177 pupils in 1965; an increase of 90,832 pupils, or 43.6%. This closely 3parallels the growth for Michigan. During this same period, the total public school enrollment for Michigan increased from 1,369,848 in 1956 to 1,968,299 in 1965, an increase of 43.77...1 1Michigan Department of Education. Figures for 1965-66 are not audited. ~ 78 Son mum woumomfi Mom newsman .uasoo afismuonaoa humaum suusom .ppuspsa .GOHumOSvm mo uaosuumaon emwfi£OHz_s kxa.ma~ see.omu oom.om~ Hes.mo~ Ham.am~ mme.ks~ mHH.am~ efim.m- eek.aH~ mem.moN maaaoa «HS.SH mmk.mfl Haa.sH HSH.SH oHe.mH Hom.NH HAH.~H 8mm.HH m~8.oH mmk.a successes wHe.kH ASN.8H Swo.oH oeo.mH Nmo.sH mem.~H NSS.HH HHm.oH mmo.oa mam.m schema mem.mH ONH.mH mma.xfi oee.xH mam.ka Skm.ka kmm.kH epo.xa sz.eH mms.eH possesses sok.wa HHA.NH mam.efi Nms.mH ASN.8H SHS.NH exo.NH mma.HH «Se.oH wmm.a mamas meo.o~ Hmm.aH «NS.SH omH.aH oak.wa mam.wa mmm.kfl mme.ka ooa.eH Ham.mH ego Space SSH.NN kam.H~ mem.H~ mmN.HN meH.H~ mmm.H~ oo~.- mok.o~ Ns~.om NNA.SH apaawsm Nmm.- Nam.NN SN~.~N NHA.HN Nun.H~ ~HS.H~ mkH.N~ m~o.- awn.~N mmo.- apopuppn moa.~N Hem.- poo.- aes.HN Sam.o~ som.o~ mHa.aH x~8.aa moo.aH ame.mH opaupom Has.om nak.ku aom.s~ emm.~N mmk.mfi mus.xa mma.eH mam.~H mme.oH mac.» «Scopes asm.om mm~.a~ «ms.m~ emn.k~ mme.pw 0mm.s~ sex.em omo.- SSH.H~ aok.ou madness HHo.mm Soe.~m kom.um umm.Hm an.Hm mem.km som.e~ nex.e~ emo.eN mme.mm sesame scape mem.es Hem.ms mMH.ee se~.Ns one.oe kmm.am mma.km mam.em «km.mm awe.em spasm ee-me no-88 Se-mo me-~o ~8-Ho He-oe oo-am am-mn an-km km-em nonhuman anaemuonamz mo muoumflm know-coy .N mHan 79 Only one of the districts has shown a decline in enrollment dur- ing the ten year period. Dearborn has experienced a slight decrease from 22,689 pupils in 1956 to 22,332 in 1965, a decline of 1.6%. In effect, the enrollment at Dearborn has remained relatively constant for the past ten years. Table 3 reveals that the other eleven districts have shown enrollment increases ranging from 2,444 pupils in Saginaw (12.4%) to 22,104 pupils in Livonia (273.7%). The rapid growth experienced by Livonia can be termed nothing short of phenomenal. Ranking last in enrollment among the twelve dis- tricts with 8,077 pupils in 1956, Livonia has grown to 30,181 in 1965, now ranking fourth. While a complete explanation of Livonia's rapid Table 3. Total Membership Growth, 1956-1965 Order by Total Membership Increase) (Rank Pupil Increase Z of Increase District 1956 1965 Or Decrease Or Decrease Livonia 8,077 30,181 22,104 273.7 Flint 34,681 46,563 11,882 34.3 Lansing 20,709 30,849 10,140 49.0 wayne 9,558 18,704 9,146 95.7 Taylor 8,813 17,618 8,805 99.9 Grand Rapids 25,483 33,011 7,528 29.5 'Waterford 9,788 16,414 6,626 67.7 Pontiac 18,499 22,905 4,406 23.8 Royal Oak 15,891 20,069 4,178 26.3 Kalamazoo 14,435 18,365 3,930 27.2 Saginaw 19,722 22,166 2,444 12.4 Dearborn 22,689 22,332 -357 -l.6 TOTALS 208,345 299,177 90,832 43.6 80 growth is not possible, it is necessary to consider several of the more important reasons for that growth. First, as previously mentioned, Livonia is located in the Detroit MetrOpolitan Area, and is strategically located to absorb what has been termed the "flight to the suburbs." As explained in the de- finition of the standard metrOpolitan statistical area, Livonia is a fractional part of a larger community, and as such has develOped into a "bedroom community." Many of the peOple living in Livonia work in industries located in other cities and/or school districts. Second, Livonia, with an approximate size of forty-two square miles, has had the Open space to accommodate the large subdivision develOpments which have been Sprouting up on the outskirts of the large cities. Three other Detroit area districts have experienced very rapid growth for similar reasons: Taylor, 99.9%; Wayne, 95.7%; and waterford, 67.7%. (Table 3) Financial Abilipy and Effort One method of determining the financial ability of a school district is to compute the State Equalized Valuation per resident mem- ‘ber. This is done by taking the total State Equalized Valuation for the school district and dividing by the total number of pupils who are residents of that district. Table 4 indicates the wide range of financial ability found among the twelve selected districts. The average Michigan school dis- trict in 1965-66 has a S.E.V./resident member of $13,760. This com- pares with a high of $29,356 for Dearborn ranging down to $6,393 for Taylor Township . 81 Table 4. Financial Ability (State Equalized Valuation per Resident Member) 1965-66 District S.E.V. /Resident Member* Dearborn $29,356 Grand Rapids 18,824 Pontiac 18,448 Kalamazoo 17,878 Flint 17,303 Saginaw 16,387 Lansing 14,810 Livonia 12,066 Royal Oak 11,127 Wayne 8,205 Waterford 7,441 Taylor 6,393 State Average $13,760 *Michigan Department of Education. Estimates from unaudited figures. This disparity in this factor is eXplained primarily by the presence or absence of large industrial or commercial establishments 'within school district boundaries which are included in the local pro- perty assessments. Residents of one district, which may have a low S.E.V./resident member, often work in a neighboring district within ‘which.a large industrial complex is located. It is not surprising to find those districts with the lower financial ability, in terms of S.E.V./resident member, levying higher inillage upon themselves in an effort to balance the amount of money available per pupil for carrying on the educational program and con- strmnzting the necessary new facilities. (Table 5) The problems this creates in districts with lower financial ability is clear. Voters must be asked continually to approve what seem to be ever increasing 82 tax rates, and it often becomes difficult to establish and maintain the desired program.as well as to construct the needed facilities. Table 5. Financial Effort* (Analysis of Local PrOperty Tax, 1964-65 in Mills) Extra Voted Debt Total District Opera- Building Retire- Extra County Total tions & Sites ment Voted Allocated Levied Wayne 18.0 --- 6.9797 24.9797 7.8993 32.8790 Waterford 15.0 --- 8.0 23.0 8.7 31.7 Livonia 15.0 --- 7.07 22.07 8.9 30.97 Royal Oak 13.25 --- 3.2 16.45 9.7 26.15 Lansing 11.3 2.891 0.33 14.521 9.112 23.633 Taylor 11.0 --- 5.2 16.2 6.9 23.1 Dearborn 9.5 --- 3.25 12.75 8.9 21.65 Kalamazoo 9.5 1.5 1.7 12.7 8.7 21.4 Pontiac 8.75 --- 1.91 10.66 9.7 20.36 Flint 7.27 2.73 --- 10.0 9.3 19.3 Saginaw 5.75 2.0 --- 7.75 10.03 17.78 Grand Rapids 3.0 2.0 0.5 5.55 10.1 15.6 *Michigan Department of Education Existinngacilities Each of the school districts were asked to supply information on the existing school-plant and also to indicate the buildings which had been constructed during the past ten years. Table 6 presents this information. Of 375 elementary buildings existing today, 130 have been constructed in the past ten years. More dramatic is the fact that 23 of 61 junior high schools, and 12 of 34 senior high schools have been constructed in the past decade. Observations ConcerninLthe Districts The twelve selected districts may be considered in two major classifications: (1) those located within the Detroit Standard 83 wuHca oHnmuuon no mHoonuu hquHun .muHas huoEHum owsHoaH uo: moonm NH-oH macaw; HHHze mHOOSom huwaHumm nuHua huwBHumN naoounmmHo ouofi no meH m U H m M O H z m m I O H m m o H z D H w m < H z m 2 m H m ON NH «m 9H MN Ho NNH omH mmnm mHHH N H m NHsoH N H m mun m MH om ouM m m NmnM wchcwH o o H NHuoH H m o mun N oH Nm mix a ~H-N H m-“ m N-M meamm mambo o N d NHuoH m N w mun mN «H H¢ aux ¢HH wNH NmnM uaHHm mGOHu .uwuHm .mwva Hm>mH mSOHu .mmva .mwme Hw>mH miOHu .mwva .mwva Ho>oH qup¢ Bmz wcH opmuo -va< 3oz wcH mwmuo [Hpv< 3oz wcH mwwuo Huommz numem HHonz numem Huonwz numem uoHuumHn ommH wuaHM ommH woaHm mmmH woan wmmH ouch uoHuopuumaoo paw moHuHHHowm HunoHumoovu .o oHan 84 MetrOpolitan Statistical Area and essentially a part of the Detroit MetrOpolitan Area, and (2) those which serve the largest city in separate standard metrOpolitan statistical areas. These two cate- gories might be termed the Suburban Detroit districts and the "out- state" or independent districts. It should be recognized that no city or school district is truly independent, but the term is used to dif- ferentiate between these districts and those which are a fractional part of a much larger metrOpolitan area. Here are some of the more obvious observations about the dis- tricts in each of these two categories. Suburban Detroit: 1. Enrollment: Dearborn is remaining relatively constant, while Royal Oak is leveling off as residential satura- tion occurs. Pontiac has shown a steady and relatively low rate of growth. Four of the districts (Livonia, Taylor, Wayne, and Waterford), have made very large gains in enrollment, with the increase at Livonia far in excess of the other districts. 2. Financial Ability: The three districts showing the least growth in enrollment are well above the state average for financial ability, with one (Dearborn) more than twice the state average. The four districts showing the greatest growth in enrollment all rank below the state average, with three districts qualifying as "distressed" districts because of their low S.E.V./resident member and the high level of taxation. 3. School-Plant: The districts with the poorest financial situation have been forced to build more facilities than those with a more favorable financial status. 4. Geographic Size: None of the metrOpolitan area districts have increased substantially in geographic size. 5. Future Growth: The "suburban" or "bedroom communities" can expect continued enrollment increases as the pOpula- tion of the Detroit Standard MetrOpolitan Statistical Area continues to increase until residential saturation occurs. (Dearborn and Royal Oak have reached this stage.) 85 Outstate Districts: 1. Enrollment: Growth has been steady but much less spectacu- lar in the outstate school districts. It is interesting to note that the combined increase in pupil enrollment for Lansing and Flint for the ten year period is less than that for Livonia. 2. Financial Ability: The outstate districts are more closely grouped, ranging from $14,810/resident member in Lansing to $18,824/resident member in Grand Rapids. 3. School-Plant: New construction, while substantial, does not compare with the amount required by the suburban Detroit areas. 4. Geographic Size: Most of the growth in geographic area is accounted for by these districts, with Lansing experi- encing greater growth than the other eleven districts combined. General It is obvious that the outstate districts have more in common and are much more similar in terms of growth patterns and financial ability than are the suburban Detroit districts. The suburban districts shomeuch greater disparity, and it appears that those with the greatest need have the least financial ability to meet the need. It is also in- teresting to note from Table 5 that the outstate districts are all levying building and sites millage with little or no emphasis on bond programs, while the Suburban Detroit areas have relied primarily on bond issues. They may be partially explained by the more steady and regular growth pattern occurring in the outstate districts compared to the sudden surge of growth experienced by the Suburban Detroit area. 86 Administrative Organization General Originally it was hOped that a rather detailed discussion of the administrative organization of the selected districts could be presented. It was soon discovered that about the only thing the dis- tricts had in common was the position of superintendent. Each of the reapondents but one stated that an administrative organization chart was available, but they proved exceedingly hard to locate and when found, in most cases, had been so revised that they were of little help. Line and staff responsibilities, titles of positions, and general staff organization are so diverse that this area could justify a study in itself. It appears that many of the administrative staffs have proliferated with very little consideration of what might be the most effective administrative organization. Responsibility for School-Plant Planning The purpose of making a cursory analysis of the administrative structure was to determine how the person reaponsible for school-plant planning fits into that structure. The first hint of difficulties along this line occurred when an attempt was made to establish contact with the individual primarily responsible for the area of school-plant plan— ning. With few exceptions, there was considerable doubt as to whom the writer should contact. In many cases it was necessary for the writer to explain in detail the nature of his interest and then talk ‘with several staff members before determining which staff member was most apprOpriate. 87 The titles of those interviewed in Table 7 indicate to some ex- tent the variation in their responsibilities. Table 7. Persons Interviewed Most Directly Responsible for School-Plant Planning One Person Responsible District Title for School-Plant Planning Flint ‘ Construction Engineer No Grand Rapids Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Business Affairs V No Lansing Consultant in School-Plant Planning Yes Livonia Assistant Superintendent for School-Plant Plan- ning & Research Yes Pontiac Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Business & Staff Personnel Yes Dearborn Assistant for Building Services No Saginaw Director of Buildings & Grounds Yes Royal Oak Director of Purchasing & PrOperty Services No Wayne Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services Yes Kalamazoo Assistant Superintendent also Director of Build- ings & Grounds No Taylor Deputy Superintendent Yes Waterford Superintendent No Six of the twelve districts indicated that one individual is responsible for coordinating all efforts in the area of school-plant planning. In only two of these six districts, Lansing and Livonia, are there positions where the individual does not have extensive additional duties. Two other districts (Grand Rapids and Waterford) are planning to establish positions where one person will be responsible for the total process. 88 It can be seen from Table 7 that the responsibilities of those most directly responsible for school-plant planning usually include many other important areas. Seven of those interviewed held positions of superintendent, deputy superintendent, or assistant superintendent. It was noted that in those cases where the school-plant planning pro- cess is a responsibility of a position which has a number of other important responsibilities, these are most often in the business management, maintenance and Operation, buildings and grounds, or engineering areas. Rarely is responsibility for school-plant planning assigned to a person with a curriculum background or to someone who has been eSpecially trained to work in school-plant planning. Several of the reapondents expressed real concern over their inadequacies in the area of school program, while considering theme selves very capable in the more technical areas concerned with the construction, maintenance, or Operation of the physical facilities themselves. Procedures for District-Wide Planning The Comprehensive Survey Of the eleven districts replying, six reported that a compre- hensive survey of the district had been conducted. Five have been within the past ten years with one completed in 1948-1949. Two dis- tricts reported that the survey continues to have a great deal of im- pact on current decisions while three districts report some impact. The 1948-1949 study is reported to have but little impact. (Table 8) Local staff members participated in each of the six comprehen- sive surveys reported. Outside experts were used in four cases, and 89 no» 02 pnomuouwz . 02 oz uoHNmH mmHuHHHomm no» 02 1£ oz oonmamHmN no» 02 oshwz oz x .. oz no» N x 32 3w xmo Hmaom 3» x 32 3» 3w x x . RmH 3» smaHmmm ouonuwon no» N momH oz 02 N N NoaH mm» omHucom awHa ouHm owawuumooH no» 02 oz mHao>HH sown muHm swoon: :oH no» 02 N nu 02 mo» N N N HomH mo» wsHmsmH mmHu ti! nHHHomm huopaoowm no» 02 N :- 02 now N N mqwq mow mpHamN momma nu oz N 1: oz no? N N mmaH no» uoHHm 3V 03 0d n.l uh. 0.4 11m. 10 1.7L HI. .d v.0 N H1 S 09 N. Vum. O a an. AT. JSA 83 9 a o I. 81 St. I. 380 11.88 In? 1.0 G 1 um u 3 was sflVflsual .488 313 ml? Am I. .4 8d a a. a 1.9 3 8 ud 1.39 Tm. BIT. J3 88 38 0 ad 8 H s As 3 Hana IV a& Judm.no no 3 Sa 1 H nH EM I A 0 13 u 9T. s .10 18 0 mo no.3 HI % 3on.369 m... If“? a wm . muuooxm mm 3 a>o>hawflouausm . ... usmuuoo A .A . opHuuso .A How mauHm so uosaaH tr nusooHOHuuum No>u5m o>Hmao£ouQEoo .m oHnuH 90 lay citizens were involved in three of the surveys. Five of the dis- tricts reported that the local planning agency assisted in the survey. Two of the remaining five districts reported partial surveys, with one primarily concerned with enrollment projections and the other a study of facilities. Three districts report no district-wide sur- veys. Four districts reported plans for a comprehensive survey in the near future, and three of the remaining seven districts have partial surveys concerning facilities either underway or planned. Determination of Educational Program Needs Every district reported that there was an ongoing study of the educational program by the professional staff. Without exception, they reported that the persons involved in the curriculum study are also involved in planning for new facilities, thus providing the neces- sary communication of emerging educational concepts which might have implications for the facilities being planned. Determination of School Housing Needs Enrollment Projections Each of the districts reported that an enrollment projection was made annually. Methods used varied, but eight of ten districts stated that the percentage of survival technique was included in their considerations. (Table 9) The length of time for which the projections are made ranges from one to fifteen years. Seven of ten districts attempt to project for a five year period, with one district projecting for ten years, and 91 Table 9. Method Used for Annual Enrollment Projections Years District Method Projected Flint Z of survival plus other considerations 10 Grand Rapids Enrollment as ratio of total number of families 15 Lansing Z of survival, saturation analysis 5 Livonia Pontiac Comparison with fourth friday recommen- dations l Dearborn Saginaw Z of survival Royal Oak Projection of current census Wayne Census, Z of survival, saturation analysis 5 Kalamazoo Z of survival 5 Taylor Z of survival 5 Waterford Z of survival, saturation analysis 5 another for fifteen. One of the districts projects for only one year in the future, while two districts failed to reply. In seven of the districts the enrollment projection is made by a person other than the one primarily responsible for school-pland plan- ning. This reflects the Specialized nature of this area, and the re- liance upon such offices as child accounting and research for assis- tance 0 Ultimate Holding Capacity It is not surprising to find those districts which are experi- encing the most rapid growth conducting ultimate holding capacity studies. Six districts report such studies and, in all but one case, had the 92 assistance of the local planning agency. (Table 10) Those districts which have reached residential saturation have little need for such a study, or do those districts where growth has been relatively slow and regular. The six districts which have experienced the greatest percent- age of growth in the past ten years are the districts which receive preliminary plats from the local planning agency for review. Table 10. Ultimate Holding Capacity Study Conducted Ulti- Local Plan- Flats for New DevelOp- District mate Holding ning Agency ments Submitted for Re- Capacity Study Assistance view by School District Flint No No Grand Rapids Yes Yes Yes Lansing Yes Yes Yes Livonia Yes Yes Yes Pontiac No No Dearborn Saginaw No No Royal Oak Yes No No Wayne Yes Yes Yes Kalamazoo No No Taylor No Yes Waterford Yes Yes Yes Evaluation of Existing School-Plant Only two of the twelve districts reported that their buildings were evaluated on a regular periodic basis for educational adequacy. One of the two districts stated this was done every five years or when needed, while the other district indicated this was left up to the building principal who made an annual report. There appeared to be no standard methods of building evaluation being used, and there was no mention of the use of any score cards or 93 evaluative devices. It should be pointed out that the question con- cerned educational adequacy, not structural items. Several districts reported regular inspections for fire safety, structural, mechanical, and similar items pertaining to the physical structure itself. Capacity Figures The discussion of this area created a certain amount of con- sternation among the administrators interviewed. This seemed to be a rather delicate subject and one which should not be treated lightly. An attempt was made to determine whether or not definite capacity figures were available for all of the buildings of the school district. Table 11 indicates that nine of the eleven districts replied affirma- tively to this question. No effort was made to see such figures, or obtain written material on these capacity figures. The writer must, however, express some doubt as to the ease with which these figures could be produced, or to their accurateness. Only two districts re- ported that such figures were not available for all schools. Methods of computing figures varied widely. For elementary schools, capacity was generally determined by multiplying the number of rooms by the desired capacity. Of course, it is much more difficult to compute capacity for large secondary buildings. The writer found none of the methods being used which were recommended by authorities in Chapter II. Each district had develOped their own system which usually consisted of multiplying the total number of pupils for all teaching stations by a percentage of utilization factor. This factor ranged from eighty per cent to ninety per cent. 94 The problem of semantics should not be overlooked. Terms used for describing capacities were: Optimum, desirable, reasonable, average, maximum, and emergency. Table 11. Capacity Figures (Availability and Categories Used) F Utilization Capacity Figures Factor Used for District Available for Categories Computing Secondary All Schools Used School Capacity Flint Yes Maximum 80% Grand Rapids Yes Optimum 80% Maximum Lansing Yes Desirable Reasonable 85% (R) Emergency Livonia No Pontiac Yes Reasonable 90% Jr., 85% Sr. Emergency Dearborn Saginaw No Royal Oak Yes Maximum 90% wayne Yes Reasonable 85% Kalamazoo Yes Average 83% Taylor Yes 815 Law Close to 100% Waterford Yes Maximum 90% Jr., 85 Sr. The Master Plan for Sites Table 12 reveals that a master plan for future school sites has been develOped by five of the eleven districts reaponding. Three of these reported that the master plan has been adOpted officially by the board of education, and in the other two cases they have been pre- All five reported that the master sented for board Of education study. plan has been submitted to other governmental agencies for review, and 95 four of the plans are a part of the city master plan. The other dis- trict reported that the city master plan is in need of revision and it is expected that the school site plan will be incorporated into this revision. Table 12. Master Plan for Future School Sites Master Adapted Submitted to Part of City District Plan by the Other Agencies 0r Gov't. Unit DevelOped Bd. of Ed. for Review Muster Plan Flint NO* --- --- --- Grand Rapids Yes Yes Yes Yes Lansing Yes No Yes No (Presented) (City Master Plan needs Revision) Livonia --- --- --- --- Pontiac Yes Yes Yes Yes Dearborn No* --- --— --- Saginaw No*:** --- --- Yes Royal Oak No* --- --- --- wayne Yes No Yes Yes (Presented) Kalamazoo No --- --- --- Taylor No** --- --- Yes Waterford Yes Yes Yes Yes *Districts report residential saturation **Districts have adOpted planning agency master plan Four districts have no master plan for future sites because residential saturation has occurred and the need for additional sites is not indicated at this time. Two other districts reported no master plan, however one of these districts utilizes the city master plan. Officials of the other district stated that such a plan was develOped about ten years ago, but changes occurred so rapidly they were unable to maintain it. 96 None of the school districts have board of education policy on the need for such a master plan or on procedure for its develOpment, review and updating, or implementation. Site Selection Those districts reporting a master plan indicated that sites are usually selected in accordance with the master plan, while this matter was not applicable to four of the districts. Site criteria have been develOped by seven of the eight districts reaponding, but in only one case is this criteria board of education policy. Table 13 reveals a rather wide range in the site size which is considered desirable. Most of those interviewed believed ten acres desirable for elementary schools, twenty to thirty acres for junior high schools, and forty to sixty acres for senior high schools. It was difficult to determine from those interviewed how far in advance they believe school sites should be purchased, although most spoke in general terms of from five to fifteen years. It can be seen from Table 13 that eight of the districts now own vacant sites, some of considerable size. It is interesting to note from Table 13 that of nine districts responding, three always have the local planning agency assist them in site selection, while three reported they never have such assistance. Site Acquisition Only one of ten districts stated that they have board of educa- tion policy on site acquisition. Six Of these same ten districts re- ported that appraisals are always made of prOperty to be purchased, and four indicated that appraisals were usually made. Three of the districts 97 nouu< me .uHoonom NuuaHum now uouHm osa«¥ . :OHuuuauum HuHucovHuuN n auHm pound: ozs NHao NNH N on H 9 ca on oH st>mm may as» mamsHa suomuuuwz o o mN m o¢-mm NHunH oH um>mz 02 may aHHSS uoHNsH NH H mm H o sac N as oN N-w um>oz oz oz uo>mz oonmasst o nN H omH m on nN oH .uuo 02 new NHHmsms mas»: o o 0 same Huaom o NH H o N mH NH N mamaH< ssmanmm *uuonumon o o NN N coH-om mN oH pm>uz 02 saw NHHsama umHucom mHoo>HH Nm H NN H OH H om om oH mansH< oz may NHHusu: waHmauH ow H on N es s om om oH namsH< 02 may NHHmsup nsHasm scouo o o 0 on NH 0 NHHusup oz mow sucHHm V1 SN Vl SN Vl SN VT 33 D I 3 0 To 3 O 1.0 0 0 7:0 HOHGQm .HOHESH .BOHM co 0 0.1 1 u 1.4 .4. 1.4 .4. 1.4 .4. 33 n1. I. a? a 99 a 38 9 UR 3.4. 3. WV 8T. 80 also FT. SO 3T. 93 a 3 a 3 T: 8 3 ha 3 A 4 1 1 s o I 3 a a .d 1.7.. T... .40 S MOHcom HOHash .EmHM W.W. m s s m m. n mHnwuHmun uoumancoo m.w a w m a m n SI. 09 A To .4 ....u I... 3 93 S posse uouHm ucmom> uwuo< EH ONHm w 8 n.D. M u M O [“0 d I. 3 1.. 3 3. D. u. :OHuOOHmm ouHm .MH OHnuH 98 require two appraisals, five stated one or two, and two of the dis- tricts reported that one appraisal is made. (Table 14) A much wider discrepancy was apparent in the use of a realtor to act as an agent for the Board Of Education in the purchasing of prOperty. Two districts reported that realtors are always used, with four districts usually engaging a realtor, and one district occasion- ally using a realtor. On the other hand, three districts stated that a realtor was never used. (Table 14) No pattern was observable in the use of specialists for the evaluation of sites prior to purchase. Several districts mentioned that soil borings were taken, and three districts indicated that There seemed to be architects were asked to participate if possible. a general feeling that there is a need to do a great deal more in this area. Table 14. Site Acquisition Bd. of Ed. Policy On Number of Realtors District Acquisition Appraisals Appraisals Utilized to Procedures Made Required Make Purchase Flint No Always 2 Usually Grand Rapids No Always l or 2 Never Lansing No Usually 1 or 2 Usually Livonia -- -- -- -- Pontiac NO Always 2 Usually Dearborn -- -- -- ~- Saginaw No Usually I Always -Royal Oak No Always 1 or 2 Never Wayne NO Always l or more Always Kalamazoo No Usually 2 Occasionally Taylor No Always l or 2 Never Waterford Yes Usually I Usually 99 Procedures for Planning the Individual School Plant Educational Planning The educational planning for a Specific building is considered by many to be school-plant planning. As used here, it is but one step in the total school-plant planning process, albeit a very important and essential step. The writer concerned himself with four major sapects of educa- tional planning: (1) who are the peOple involved, (2) how much time is allowed, (3) when are planning meetings held, and (4) are written edu- cational specifications prepared. Districts were asked to supply this information for both elementary school planning and planning for secon- dary schools, to determine to what extent the planning varied. Participants Table 15 reveals that the size of the group doing educational planning for elementary schools is rather small, usually less than ten peOple. Table 16 helps identify these peOple as the architect, the assistant superintendent for business and/or the assistant superinten- dent for instruction, the person responsible for school-plant planning, one or more elementary principals, and less often, one or more teachers. It is a little surprising to note that four of the ten districts never involve teachers in the educational planning for elementary schools. It should also be noted that eight out of the ten districts never in- volve lay citizens. The size of the planning group for secondary schools is con- siderably larger than that for the elementary schools. Table 15 Table 15. Planning for Specific Buildings by 100 Size of Group Involved in Educational Number of School Districts Number of Peo 1e Building 5-9 10-19' 20429 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Elementary 5 2 1 0 0 Secondary 0 0 l 3 Table 16. Participants in Educational Planning for Specific Buildings by Number of School Districts ALWAYS USUALLY’ OCCASIONALLY NEVER Participants Elem. Sec. Elem. Sec. Elem. Sec. Elem. Sec.. Outside Edu- cational Consultant 1 2 2 2 6 5 Architect 6 6 1 l l 2 2 1 Supt., Asst. Supt. for Business and/or Instr. 7 7 2 2 l 1 0 0 School-Plant Planner* 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Principal 6 6 2 2 0 0 2 2 Teacher 4 6 2 2 0 0 4 2 Lay Citizens l 1 l l 0 0 8 8 Directors or Consultants in Subject Areas** 2 3 l 0 0 0 0 0 v *Person most directly responsible for school-plant planning **Positions which some districts do not have or did not report 101 indicates that six districts have between ten and thirty-nine peOple involved and four districts have in excess of fifty peOple. None of the districts reported less than ten peOple. While the numbers are greater, the increase appears to be made up almost entirely of teachers. It is noted from Table 16 that six of the districts always involve teachers in planning for secondary build- ings, and two stated that they usually do. As in the case of elemen- tary schools, lay citizens are never involved by eight districts, and outside educational consultants seldom assist in educational planning. Time Allowed Table 17 reveals that from two to six months is considered adequate time to allow for the educational planning of an elementary school by all ten respondents. Four of these districts considered two months to be adequate. Seven of the twelve districts reported that they allow twelve months for secondary school planning, while one district allowed six months, one two months, and one twenty-four months. Table 17. Time Allowed for Educational Planning for Specific Buildings by Number of School Districts Number of Months Building 2 3 4 5 6 12 18 24 Elementary 4 1 2 - 3 -- -- -- Secondary l - - - l 7 -- l 102 When Planning Meetings Are Held Respondents had difficulty identifying a regular time when planning meetings were held. There was a wide variation in the re- sponses with no definite pattern established. Most of the districts reported that planning meetings were held immediately after regular school hours. Exceptions to this were the districts who do not in- volve teachers, and these districts reported holding their meetings during the school day. Districts involving teachers stated that they try not to hold meetings during the school day, but when this is necessary the teachers involved are given released time so they may attend. Several of the districts reported that they occasionally meet evenings or Saturdays, but very seldom. Three districts indicated they have occasionally used vacation periods for educational planning. Of eight districts responding, seven stated that they never give extra pay for work other than what would be considered normal hours. The exception was a case where a summer workshOp had been held to develOp educational specifications for a secondary building. Educational Specifications The most important item, of course, is the quality of the edu- cational specifications and how well they communicate the educational program to be housed to the architect. Unfortunately, it was not possible to scrutinize the educational specifications which had been prepared by the selected districts. The only item attempted was to determine whether or not written educational specifications were actually produced. Table 18 reveals 103 that only four of the ten districts always prepare written educational specifications for elementary schools, while one district stated they usually do. On the other hand, seven districts stated that they always prepare written educational specifications for secondary schools and two additional districts reported that they usually do. Surprisingly, one district reported that they never produce a "formally written" document but certainly make specifications known to the architect. Table 18. DevelOpment of written Educational Specifications by Number of School Districts ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER # of School Elem. Sec. Elem. Sec. Elem. Sec. Elem.‘ Sec. Districts Using Written Educa- tional Specifi- _ cations: 4 7 1 2 3 0 2 l Architectural Planning Seven of ten districts reported that the architect is usually or always involved in educational planning and the develOpment of educational specifications. The purpose of this section is not to analyze the work of the architect during the design phase of the building, i.e., the develOpment Of schematics, preliminary drawing, and working drawings; or his responsibilities during bidding, award- ing of contracts, and the construction of the building. This section is concerned with (1) how the architect is selected, (2) the use of local architects, (3) restrictions placed upon the 104 architect, and (4) professionals on the school district staff who work closely with the architect. Selection of Architects Nearly all of the school districts indicated that architects were selected on the basis of qualifications rather than through design competition. However, Table 19 indicates that the use of a standard questionnaire is not general practice in most districts. Most dis- tricts report that architects are always or usually interviewed, but only one reports always visiting other work completed by the architect. Table 19. Architect Selection by Number Of School Districts ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER Selection on Basis of: Design Competition 0 0 l 10 Open Selection 7 3 l 0 Use of Standard Questionnaire 3 1 4 3 Interview of Architects 3 4 4 0 Other WOrk Visited l 3 7 0 Use of Local Architects Several of the respondents explained that they were familiar with the work of the architects and it was not necessary to interview them or visit their work. This led into a discussion of the use of local architects as Opposed to the use of some of the larger, nation- ally recognized architectural firms. As Table 20 indicates, the school districts rely heavily on local architects, with six of eleven districts stating that local archi- tects are usually given repeat business on a rotation basis. Only one 105 of the eleven districts which reported has recently constructed a building designed by an architectural firm with offices outside of Michigan. Table 20. Use of Local Architectural Firms by Number of School Districts ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER Use of Firms Considered to be Local 4 4 3 0 Repeat Business Given to Local Architects on Rotation Basis 0 6 2 3 Restrictions Placed on Architects When asked if architects were given a cost figure which they are expected to meet, all eleven districts replied that they give the architect a total cost, or budget which he is expected to meet. Only three stated the architect is given a square foot cost, and one dis- trict added cost per pupil, and cost per cubic foot to the first two cost restrictions. (Table 21) Three of eleven districts require the architect to have a master site plan develOped by a landscape architect, and several others felt it to be desirable and something which they hOped to be able to re- quire in the near future. Table 21. Restrictions Placed on Architects by Number of School Districts COST RESTRICTIONS: ‘ YES NO Total Cost 11 0 Cost per square foot 3 8 OTHERS MENTIONED: Cost per pupil Cost per cubic foot MASTER SITE PLAN REQUIRED 3 8 r—n—a 106 Staff Engineer or Architect Larger districts sometimes employ a registered architect and/ or engineer to assist them on new construction projects, moderniza- tion, and maintenance. Six of eleven districts reported they em- ployed engineers, and in each case that they worked closely with the architectural firms during the planning and construction of new buildings. Only one district reported a registered architect and there is some question as to whether or not he is actually a staff member of the school district. Equipping All eleven school districts responding reported that they utilize a central purchasing office, and that this office is re- sponsible for purchasing the furniture and equipment for new build- ings. Three districts reported that this furniture and equipment is usually recommended by the group doing the educational planning, and the other eight districts reported that it usually is. All but one of the districts reported that standardized lines of furniture and equipment are usually purchased. When questioned as to who determines the standardized items, the writer was given a wide variety of answers, but most indicated the purchasing agent or assis- tant superintendent for business, with recommendations from the in- structional directors. None of the districts had any established procedure for review- ing standardized items, but several stated there was enough staff inter- action to indicate preference to the central purchasing office. None (If the districts have any written criteria for the selection of 107 furniture and equipment, and so, of course, no written board of educa- tion policy. Occupying Very little is being done by any of the districts to prepare the professional teaching staff to most effectively use the new build- ings. One district reported that summer workshOps were held prior to occupying a new junior high school, but this was an exception to the rule. Most of the replies indicated this was considered a respon- sibility of the building principal, and was something accomplished during the few days prior to the Opening of the new school in the fall. A number of those interviewed were almost apologetic, explain- ing they would like to see more done in this area but had been unable to institute the needed action. Most Of the districts appoint new principals for both elemen- tary and secondary schools approximately three months prior to the Opening of the new school. Four of the five smallest districts responding reported that they attempt to appoint secondary principals a full year prior to the Opening of the new school. Major Problems Faced by the School-Plant Planner Each of the individuals interviewed was asked to list what he considered to be the three most difficult problems facing his school district in the area of school-plant planning. Perhaps the most obvious problem is that of enough time to ac- complish all the necessary tasks. This is evidenced somewhat by the 108 fact that some of the individuals responding were unable to complete portions of the structured interview, including a listing of the major problems. In many cases this may be the result of one individual with too many areas of reSponsibility due to the inability of the school district to employ sufficient qualified help. Some of the major problems listed were: 1. Difficulty of defining what you want for the architect. 2. Developing facilities which are too far ahead of the professional teaching staff. 3. Impact of urban renewal, public housing, and large interstate highway projects. 4. Transiency of student pOpulation. 5. Rapidly increasing cost of construction, inability to stay within previously approved expenditures. 6. Need to have voters approve construction funds, difficulty in planning when funds are in doubt. 7. Need to stretch dollars to satisfy needs rather than having adequate financing. 8. Acquiring school sites of adequate size in built-up areas. "5T9. Planning facilities for constantly changing educational philOSOphies, methods and procedures. 10. Difficulty of accurate pOpulation projections because of erratic residential building develOpment. 11. Changing educational methods, e.g., team teaching, ungraded, and increased emphasis on summer school. 12. Difficulty of dealing with pressure groups with Special interests. 13. Difficulty of following through on new concepts incorpor- ated into buildings. 14. Too much planning of rooms without enough consideration of the sizes of groups to be housed. '15. Lack of long-range planning for facilities. 109 16. De-facto segregation--its effect of attendance areas and new construction. 17. Coordinating school financing with building needs. 18. Maintaining continuous facilities construction plan with a year to year updating of needed facilities. It can be seen that these problems fall into several major categories: (1) the need for and improvement of the long-range plan, (2) difficulties involved in enrollment projections, (3) educational planning, and (4) financing. Suggestions for Improving the School- Plant Planning Process Respondents were asked to give suggestions as to how the school- plant planning process might be improved. It is not surprising to find that some of the suggestions are conflicting, both with other sugges- tions and with the major problems listed. Some of those interviewed were not at all convinced of the value of cooperative planning, particularly the involvement of teachers who they feel are more con- cerned with educational fads than the construction of "good, sound buildings." Some of the suggestions included: 1. Allow more time for educational planning. 2. Appoint principals as far in advance as possible. 3. DevelOp clearinghouse for school plans on a statewide basis. 4. Encourage uniformity in building requirements, e.g., Department of Education, state fire marshal, local building authorities. 5. Provide state aid for school construction, perhaps on a matching basis. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 110 Be less concerned about theoretical needs and educational fads, and build high quality buildings. Spend less time listening to teachers and more time listen- ing to contractors and architects to assure that the tax- payer gets his money's worth. Have more staff involvement during the summer months. Allow for more visitations by the board of education, pro- fessional staff, and lay citizens to other school dis- tricts to discuss what they are doing and observe new facilities. Encourage more publications of a technical nature in the area of School-plant. Maintain a balance between program areas within the fin- ancial limitations. Develop a long-range comprehensive plan. (Better to over plan than under plan as this is the least expensive part of the total Operation.) Update building facilities plan through standardization of data compilation. DevelOpment of school-plant planning on a broader scale to handle emerging as well as traditional problems. Prepare staff and organization to meet the new forces af- fecting school facilities in urban communities. Summary This chapter has included a brief description of the selected school districts, their administrative organization, and an analysis of responsibility for school-plant planning within the districts. The shmilarities and differences found in the planning procedures followed by these districts, in both district-wide planning and the planning for Specific building, were presented. Major problems facing the school-plant planner and suggestions for improving the school—plant planning process were listed, as perceived by the reSpondents. CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The broad goal of this study, as stated in Chapter I, was to assist those responsible for school-plant planning to more effectively discharge their responsibilities and to provide local school districts with the best possible school-plants in which to carry out their edu- cational program. The Specific purpose, however, was to develOp recommendations for the possible improvement of current practices in school-plant planning and particularly in those districts included in the study. In order to formulate such recommendations it was necessary to review the literature on school-plant planning, and to analyze data gathered on the procedures being utilized by the selected districts. This allowed the author to draw some conclusions, and subsequently make recommendations. These conclusions and recommendations are presented in this chapter. The Basis for Analysis The analysis of data gathered is based on three points: 1. The generalized observations of the school-plant planning process as gleaned from the literature. 111 112 2. The organization and use of the Structured interview form to collect data on each of the selected districts and their current practices in the area of school-plant planning. 3. The research and experience of the author. Each of these major points will be explained in more detail. Generalized Observations It became clear, as the writer conducted a thorough review of the literature, that there were very few major items on which the authors disagreed. There were differences of emphasis, content, and style; but, in general, the authors were stating the same principles and concepts. This led to the develOpment of what the author chose to call the Generalized Observations of the School-Plant Planning Process; a summation of the school-plant planning process as described in the literature. Organization of the Structured Interview A search of the literature failed to reveal a structured inter- view form which would allow the author to meet the objectives of the study. In organizing the structured interview it seemed logical to follow the structure of the generalized observations which had emerged from a review of the literature. It had been determined early in the study, that to get a com- prehensive picture Of school-plant planning in the selected districts it would be necessary to actually visit the school districts and dis- cuss the school-plant planning process with the individual most 113 directly reaponsible for that process. Every effort was made to con- struct an interview form which was as objective as possible, but yet provided an Open-ended flexibility which allowed the respondent to go beyond a yes or no answer. The resulting interview form (Appendix A) was tested on a pilot district to insure that it would yield the desired results and also to give the author some eXperience in the techniques which would be most effective in using the interview form. In addition, several faculty members at Michigan State University were asked to review the interview form, and their recommendations were incorporated into the final form. Research and Experience It was then necessary to analyze the data collected on the selected districts in light of the Generalized Observations which had been made from the literature. If this analysis was to have meaning, it was necessary that the person develOping the analysis have an understanding of the school-plant planning process. To obtain this understanding became a major goal of the author while conducting this study. Much of the author's advanced graduate work has been oriented in this area. Participation as a member Of the field service team at IMichigan State University helped broaden the author's experience. .Appointment as an administrative intern and later as a consultant in school-plant planning for one of the larger districts included in the astudy, gave the author direct, first-hand experience with the planning lxrocess and the many and varied problems which may be encountered. 114 Also helpful was the earlier Opportunity to serve as an assistant to the Executive Secretary of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction and later to participate as a member in both regional and national meetings of that organization. Perhaps most valuable has been the Opportunity to visit with nationally recognized authorities on school-plant planning at Michi- gan State University. Their willingness to discuss the concepts in- volved in school-plant planning as well as the problems of a Specific situation have helped to unify the experiences of the author and develOp the necessary understanding. Conclusions The conclusions were reached by analyzing the data collected on the selected districts and reported in Chapter III. This data was compared with the generalized Observations emanating from a review of the literature and reported in Chapter II. Conclusions are grouped into seven major areas, closely following those used in the structured interview. These conclusions apply to the selected districts included in the study. It is not intended that inferences or interpretations be drawn which apply to other districts. Description of the Districts 1. There is great variation among the school districts in terms of location, rate of growth, financial ability, and financial effort. 115 Seven of the districts are located in the Detroit Standard MetrOpolitan Statistical Area and are considered to be "Suburban Detroit" districts. Five of the districts are located in separate Standard MetrOpolitan Statistical Areas and are considered to be "outstate" districts. There is much greater disparity among the Suburban Detroit districts than the outstate districts in rate of pupil growth, and financial ability. Those with the least ability are being faced with the greatest demand for new facilities. The present method of financial support of local school districts is inequitable and in most cases inadequate. Outstate districts tend to rely on buildings and site millage for a "pay as you go" construction program, while Suburban Detroit districts tend to rely on bond issues. Several outstate districts have made substantial increases in geographic size, but further annexation of large areas is not anticipated. Administrative Organization 1. Administrative organization, titles, and positions vary tremendously among the districts. Most districts do not have a current organizational chart. School district administrative staffs appear to have grown without adequate consideration for the most effective admin- istrative organization. 116 Personnel reSponSible for school-plant planning usually have a number of other major responsibilities. The background of school-plant planners is most often in the business, maintenance and Operation, or construction areas. Many of those responsible for school-plant planning are more concerned with the quality of the physical structure than the educational program it is designed to house. District-Wide Planning 1. Comprehensive surveys are needed by six of the districts. Such surveys have been conducted by six of the twelve dis- tricts. Outside experts were used in four of the six, and lay citizens involved in three. Those responsible for an ongoing study of the educational program are usually involved in the planning for new buildings. Each of the districts make an annual enrollment projection. Most use the percentage of survival technique and project for five years into the future. Most districts experiencing rapid residential develOpment have conducted some type of ultimate holding capacity study. Very little is being done in the evaluation of school-plant for educational adequacy. Capacity figures for schools were available in most dis- tricts, but methods of determining capacity and the type of capacity designated vary greatly. 10. 11. 117 A master plan, or long-range site plan, has been develOped by five of eleven districts, and in each case has been sub- mitted to other local agencies for review. Sites are usually selected in accordance with the master plan where available. Only three of nine districts have the assistance of the local planning agency in Site selection. All of the districts usually require appraisals prior to purchase of prOperty. There is a wide variation in the use of realtors to assist in the purchase of property. Only one district reported Board of Education policy on Site acquisition. Planning the Individual School-Plant l. The planning group for elementary schools is usually less than ten, and most often includes the architect, an assis- tant superintendent, the school-plant planner, an elemen- tary principal, and one or more teachers. Four of ten districts never involve teachers in the planning of elemen- tary schools. The planning group for secondary schools is usually larger, and is more apt to involve teachers. Lay citizens are seldom used in the develOpment of educa- tional specifications. A.much shorter time (two to six months) is considered ade- quate for educational planning on an elementary school than for a secondary school (twelve months). 118 Most planning meetings are held immediately after school hours, and teachers are not paid for time beyond their nor- mal school day. Most of the districts prepare written educational speci- fications for secondary schools, but less often for elemen- tary schools. Less emphasis is placed upon educational planning for ele- mentary schools, than for secondary schools. There is room for much improvement in educational planning for both elementary and secondary schools. Architectural Planning 1. The architect is usually involved in the educational plan- ning for a building. Architects are selected on the basis of qualifications, but the use of a standard questionnaire, interviews, and visits to the architects' previous work vary greatly. Most of the districts use local architects, six districts reported that local architects are usually given repeat business on a rotation basis. Less care is taken in the selection of architects for elementary schools than secondary schools. All districts expect the architect to stay within the total cost budget but only seldom make a cost/square foot, cost/ cubic foot, or cost/per pupil restriction. Six of the eleven districts employ engineers who work closely with the architect. In four cases this person is also re- Sponsible for the school-plant planning process. 119 Equipping 1. All of the districts utilize a central purchasing office which is reSponsible for purchasing furniture and equip- ment for new buildings. 2. The central purchasing office usually considers the recom- ( mendation of the educational planning committee. 3. Standardized lines of furniture and equipment are used in all but one district. 4. None of the districts have an established procedure for review of standardized items or written criteria for the selection of furniture and equipment. Occupying 1. Very little is done to prepare the teaching staff for the most effective use of new buildings. 2. Principals are usually reSponsible for preparing the teach- ing staff for use of the new building, and in most cases the principal is appointed only three months prior to the opening of the new building. Recommendations These recommendations were develOped by a critical analysis and comparison of the data collected on the selected districts and reported in Chapter III, with the generalized observations of the school-plant planning process reported at the end of Chapter II. They are intended primarily for improving the school-plant planning process in these or similar districts. The author cautions the reader that it is not 120 intended or inferred that they be applied to all school districts in Michigan or elsewhere. However, Since the generalized observations describe a school-plant planning process whose principles may be applied to most districts, these recommendations should be of value to the careful and discreet reader, regardless of his school district. Some of the recommendations have application at the state-wide level in terms of changes of support for all local school districts. For the most part, however, the recommendations apply to the selected districts themselves. It is hOped that these recommendations will be looked upon as constructive criticism which has as its sole purpose the improvement of the school-plant planning process at the local school-district level. Certainly many of those interviewed are well aware of the need to implement these recommendations. Identification, publication, and Open discussion may help speed up the process of change. 1. The present method of financial support should be completely revised to provide each child a more equal Opportunity for quality education. 2. School district boundaries should be studied and new bound- aries established on the basis of what is best for the children involved. 3. State universities and the Michigan Department of Education should provide more services to the local districts in the school-plant planning process, particularly in the area of long-range planning. 4. State universities should establish undergraduate courses which acquaint future teachers with the basic fundamentals of the school-plant planning process. 121 State universities should expand their graduate programs in school-plant planning to: a. Give increased understanding to all school administra- tors . b. Prepare more individuals to serve as specialists in school-plant planning. State universities should make an effort to get those responsible for school-plant planning together in some form or workshOp or seminar, which would encourage the sharing of ideas and provide a fertile planting ground for new ideas. Local school districts should carefully examine their pre- sent administrative structure and evaluate its effective- ness, as it relates to the school-plant planning process. One person should be reSponsible for all phases of the school-plant planning process for the school district. If possible, the person responsible for school-plant planning should not have other major reaponsibilities. If it is necessary for this person to have additional duties, they Should not impinge upon his ability to carry out his re- sponsibilities for school-plant planning. The individual responsible for school-plant planning should have a broad background in the educational program. If the district feels there is need for an engineer to assist on working drawings, bidding, inspection of construction, etc.; they should employ such a person in addition to the individual reSponsible for the total school-plant planning process. 10. ll. 12. 122 The individual reaponsible for School-plant planning should make every effort to continually improve himself and Stay abreast of changes in the field. He should: a. Be an active member of such organizations as the American Association of School Administrators, The Association of School Business Officials, the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, and associated state organizations. b. Attend national, regional, and state meetings of these organizations whenever possible. c. Participate in whatever course work, seminars, or other in-service activities that are available. d. Become acquainted with other school-plant planners from other school districts in Michigan, regionally, and nationally. e. Visit new facilities constructed in other districts, being sure to relate their educational program to the new building. Some type of organization should be develOped which allows those responsible for school-plant planning from these and other districts to get together regularly to discuss common problems and their possible solutions. An increased effort should be made by local school districts to involve lay citizens in the develOpment of a comprehensive long-range plan for the district. Outside experts and con- sultants should be utilized if necessary. The plan should be revised regularly and a new study be initiated if the l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 123 earlier one no longer applies or has lost its impact for the school district. Other governmental agencies, particularly the local plan- ning agency, should be kept informed of school district plans. COOperative efforts should be initiated by the school district so that those agencies may participate and assist in the develOpment of a long-range site plan and the selection of specific Sites. Boards of Education policies should be developed on: a. The long-range site plan b. Site selection and acquisition c. Educational Specifications d. Selection of an architect e. Equipping and occupying a building Annual enrollment projections should be made which project for a minimum of five years. Where rapid residential growth is occurring, ultimate holding capacity studies Should be made with the assistance of the local planning agency. More effort should be made to determine the educational adequacy of older buildings prior to major modernization projects. Outside experts in educational program,engineer- ing, and architecture should be utilized in this evaluation if necessary. Each district Should develOp capacity figures for every school building in the district. Information Should be available which clearly explains not only the mathematical 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 124 process used, but the rationale for using that process. It might be desirable to encourage a standard method with terms which mean the same for all school districts. A master plan, or long-range site plan, should be develOped by all districts, regardless of their rate of growth. Sites should be selected in accordance with the long-range site plan. Sites should be purchased which meet an established criteria as Specified by Board of Education policy. Sites should meet the minimum size requirements established by the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. All site acquisition should be done in accordance with established Board of Education policy. This policy should spell out the need for appraisals and the use of realtors. Written educational specifications should be develOped for gll_new construction, major additions, or major moderniza- tion projects. They should be complete, and clearly describe the educational program.to be housed to the architect. Mbre emphasis should be placed on the educational planning for elementary schools. Because they are smaller projects and are constructed more regularly, they tend to receive less prOportionate attention than the less frequently con- structed, larger, and more complex secondary buildings. The group develOping educational Specifications should in- clude those who are familiar with the educational program and will be using the building. Major emphasis needs to be placed on the educational program and what is best for the pupils. 25. 26. 27. 28. 125 Adequate time should be provided for educational planning. This will vary according to the size and complexity of the project, but in general the minimum length of time should be six months for an elementary school, and twelve months for a secondary school. Planning meetings should be held at a time and in a place where all can contribute to their maximum ability. Most classroom teachers are not at their best at the end of a school day. Arrangements should be made to meet evenings, Saturdays, or weekends when longer periods of time are available. Teachers should be paid additional compensation, and it should be made clear what they are expected to pro- duce. An alternate solution would be to give released time during the school day to classroom teachers participating in educational planning. Architects should be selected in accordance with established board of education policy. This policy should call for selection on the basis of qualifications. Standard applica- tion forms Should be used, interviews held, and other work of the architects visited. The best architect for the project should be selected, regardless of geographic loca- tion or when he most recently did a project for the school district. The architect selected should participate in educational planning. If the site has not already be selected, he should assist in its selection. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 126 Formal board of education approval should be received on: a. Educational Specifications b. Schematic drawings c. Preliminary drawings and Specifications d. Working drawings Furniture and equipment for new buildings should be recom- mended to the central purchasing office by the educational planning committee. Some provision should be established to review standard lines of furniture and equipment by those who actually use it. Rapid improvements are being made in this area, and the lack of complaints by teachers unfamiliar with the new products does not justify continued purchase of the "stan- dard" line. Principals of new buildings should be appointed prior to educational planning so they may actively participate and more clearly understand the reasoning behind the necessary decisions made during educational planning. Adequate time Should be allowed to move in furniture and equipment, and to hold some meetings with the staff of the new building prior to its occupancy by students. Teachers should understand the mechanics of the building and its equipment and, if not involved in the educational planning, should understand the philOSOphy and educational concepts around which the building was designed. 127 34. An Open house Should be held which allows the citizens of the school district to thoroughly examine all facets of the new structure. This Opportunity should be taken to carefully explain the educational program which the building was designed to house. Summary This study was conceived in an effort to help those re8ponsible for the school-plant planning process to be more effective. Informa- tion was presented on the process as described in the literature, and a series of generalized Observations were develOped. The Study was designed to give a comprehensive description of the total school-plant planning process currently being carried out in the selected districts. The task was broad and complex, just as the process which it attempts to describe. Only by a careful study of the total process can those Specific areas which need further attention be identified. No dramatic surprises have been uncovered, but many strengths and weaknesses have been revealed. It is the writer's hOpe that this study will receive thoughtful consideration and prove of some value to those persons responsible for housing thousands of young peOple and an ever changing educational program. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Caudill, William W. Toward Better School Design. New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1945. Conrad, Marion J. A Manual for DeterminingjOperating Capacity of Secondary School Buildings. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educa- tional Research and Service, The Ohio State University, 1954. Cubberly, Elwood P. Editor's introduction in The School Survgy by Jesse B. Sears. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1925. Engelhardt, Nickolaus L., et. al. School Plannipg and Buildinngand- book. New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1956. Good, Carter V., Barr, A.E., and Scates, Douglas E. The Methodology of Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1941. Herrick, John H.,et. a1. From School Program to School Plant. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956. Holy, Russell A. The Relationship of City Planning to School-Plant Planning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. Landes, Jack L., and Sumption, Merle R. Citizen's WOrkbook for Evalu- sting School Building . New York: Harper & Bros., 1957. Leu, Donald, Parker, Floyd, and Glass, Kenneth. School Facility Obsolescence Survgy. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960. MacConnell, James D. Planning for School Buildings. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957. McCleary, R.D. Guide for Evaluating School Buildings. Cambridge, Massachusetts: New England School DevelOpment Council, 1949. McQuade, Walter (ed.). Schoolhouse. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958. Morphet, Edgar L. The Measurement and Interpretation of School Buildipg Utilization. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927. 128 129 National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. N.C.S.C. Guide for P1anningySchool Plants. East Lansing, Michigan: N.C.S.C., 1964. New England School DevelOpment Council. The Castaldi Nomoggam. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Council, 1953. Odell, C.W. Standards for the Evaluation of Elementary (Secondary) School Buildings. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Bros., 1950. Perkins, Lawrence B., and Cooking, Walter D. Schools. New York: Reinhold-Publishing Corp., 1949. Sumption, Merle R., and Landes, Jack L. Planning Functional School Buildings. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957. Van Dalen, Deobold B. UnderstandinggEducational Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. Articles & Periodicals American Association of School Administrators. ,American SOhool Build- ings, 27th Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1949. American Association of School Administrators. PlanningiAmerica's School Buildings, Washington; D.C.: The Association, 1960. Anderson, Homer W. "A Method for Determining the Housing Requirements of Junior High School Programs," Studies in Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, Iowa City: The University of Iowa, 1926. Briggs, Paul W. "New High School's Staff Planning and Teamwork," American School and University, Vol. 35, No. 9 (May, 1963), pp. 37-40. Castaldi, Basil. "Profile of Your Next Building," Overview, Vol. 4, No. 6 (June, 1963), pp. 31-32. Cerny, Robert G. "Educational Use Shapes the Structure," American School and University, Vol. 37, No. 3 (November, 1964), p. 29. Cocking, Walter D. "AS I See It," The School Executive, April, 1952. Cocking, Walter D. "Planning School Plants," Overview, Vol. 4, No. 5 (May, 1963), p. 75. COOper, Dan H. "School Surveys," EncycloPedia of Educational Research, Edited by Chester W. Harris (March, 1958), New York: The MacMillan Co., 1960. 130 Fowler, Fred M. "Selection and Acquisition of School Furniture," American School and University, Vol. 35, No. 9 (May, 1963). P. 51. Fox, Willard. "You Need a School-Building Consultant!" American School Board Journal, Vol. 148, No. 1 (January, 1964), p. 52. Frost, Frederick 0., Jr. "Architectural Survey Tells What's Best: Remodel, Expand, or Build," Nation's Schools, Vol.74, No. 6 (December, 1964), pp. 30-31. Gardner, Dwayne E. "The 'Do's' and 'Don'ts' of Educational Specifica- tions," American School Board Journal, Vol. 148, No. 6 (June, 1964), pp. 17-19. Gilliland, John W. "What Makes a Good Schoolhouse?" American School and University, Vol. 36, NO. 8 (April, 1964), p. 26. Hummel, Robert E. "Who Does the Educational Planning for Your Schools?" American School Board Journal, Vol. 144, NO. 3 (March, 1962), p. 33. Lyman, W. "Taking the Mystery Out of Educational Specification writing," American School Board Journal, Vol. 145, No. 3 (September, 1962), pp. 25-26. MacConnell, James D. "Sixty-seven Questions to Keep Out Planning Errors," Nation‘s Schools, Vol. 73, No. 1 (January, 1964), pp. 55-57. Marshall, John E. "Where Consultants Can Help," American School and University, Vol. 35, No. 9 (May, 1963), pp. 35-36. McGrath, John, and Buehring, L.E. "100 Years of School Plant Design," Nation's Schools, Vol. 59, No. 1 (January, 1957), p. 50. National Education Association. NEA Research Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: Research Division, NEA, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February, 1966) p. 22. Packer, Paul C. "Housing of High School Programs," Contributions to Education, NO. 159, New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univer- sity, 1924. Parker, Floyd, and Featherstone, Richard. "How to Specify Educational Needs for a New School," Nation's Schools, Vol. 73, No. 1 (January, 1964), pp. 49-50. Pipher, Wesley. "Is School Planning for Superintendents Only? Emphatically No’" Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 7, No. 6 (June, 1962), p. 379. Rice, Arthur H. "Designing the School Plant as a Learning Environment, " Nation S Schools, Vol. 59, No. 1 (January, 1957), p. 62. 131 Rice, Arthur H. "Not Enough Time for Planning," Nation's Schools, Vol. 70, No. 6 (December, 1962), pp.35-36. Sumption, Merle R. "A Survey of Surveys," Nation's Schools, Vol. 57, No. 3 (March, 1956), p. 92. Terjeson, Thomas. "Analysis of School-Plant Planning," American School Board Journal, Vol. 148, No. 1 (January, 1964), p. 9. Terjeson, Thomas. "The Four Major Problems in School Construction," American School Board Journal, Vol. 150, No. 1 (January, 1965), p. 23. Wilsey, Carl E. "The School Site: 1. Early Site Purchases Can Mean Savings," American School Board Journal, Vol. 142, No. 4 (April, 1961), p. 28. Wilson, Russell E. "Educational Specifications," Nation's Schools, Vol. 56, No. 5 (November, 1955), p. 76. Reports Mann, Horace. Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education on the Supply of School Houses. Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1838. Unpublished‘Material Braun, Frank R. "A Study of Relationships in Planning for School Build- ings Between the City Planning Agencies and School Authorities in American Cities Over 100,000 POpulation." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1961. Campbell, Stanley Clinton. "Relationships Between the Comprehensive- ness of School-Plant-Planning Procedures and the Quality of Resultant School Plants." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1961. Edwards, John D. "The Evolving Role of the Educational Consultant in School Plannings." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1953. Giddis, William James. "A Study of the Methods and Procedures Used in the School Survey Service at Michigan State University and Other Publicly Supported Big Ten Universities." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. 132 Hummel, Robert E. "Educational Planning Procedures for School Building Construction." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1961. Monacel, Louis David. "The Effects of Planned Educational Facilities Upon Curriculum.Experiences and Related Attitudes and ASpira- tions of Teachers, Pupils and Parents in Selected Urban Elementary Schools." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963. Neubacher, James Howard. "A Study of the Effects of Existing and New Educational Facilities Upon the Teachers, Pupils and Community in Terms of Curriculum Experiences and Related Attitudes and ASpirations in an Urban Elementary School Area." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963. Roaden, Ova Paul. "The Essential Elements of Educational Specifica- tions for School Plant Facilities." Unpublished Doctor‘s disser- tation, University of Tennessee, 1963. Schneider, Raymond C. "Factors Affecting School Sites." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1955. School Building Evaluation Profile. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research and Service, 1960. (Mimeographed . ) Welling, Robert Edman. "The Role of the District Employee in Charge of School Planning and Construction." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta- tion, University of Southern California, 1960. Other Sources "Questionnaire for Use in Selecting School Building Architects" (Document #B-431). Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Architecture, n.d. "Rating Form for the Selection of School Sites," Institute of Field Studies. Teachers College, Columbia University, n.d. "Schneider Site Evaluation Rating Sheet," School Planning Laboratory, Stanford University, n.d. U.S., Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of POpulation & Housing: 1960. Census Tracts, Final Report PHC (1)-73. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. APPENDI CES 1. 3. A. B. APPENDIX A INTERVIEW FORM.FOR A STUDY OF THE METHODS AND PROCEDURES USED BY SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SCHOOLPPLANT PLANNING I. GENERAL INFORMATION Name of the school district Name of the respondent Address Title Area of responsibility in school-plant planning How long have you participated in school-plant planning with this school district? Is there any written information explaining the school-plant planning process for this district? YES NO II. DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT ENROLLMENT FIGURES (FOURTH FRIDAY RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP, K-lZ) 1955 1960 1956 1961 1957 1962 1958 1963 1959 1964 INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT DURING PAST TEN YEARS: TOTAL RATE OF GROWTH(Z) GEOGRAPHIC AREA 1. Approximately how many square miles does the school district cover? 134 a . h I n O I ‘ > . ' 0 I l ‘ . . 4- ~. .' ' ’ ’ I ' . '1 I ' ’. .. ‘I .f _ r” .: , .. . - . . . . I ' . . . . u . . ’ v _' . it r y ' c. . g , . .. . . . ... _. .5 v ---.- . . .-...-...._‘ —.¢.--._.. .. _.. . . - .s . .. '9 p . , .._...—— ._ H. .— w . - -. ....... .w u..-.-.. .o -.-.. ..—.~—..~.~.~ u n—h—o.-~.-n.¢-- -o- . c.-'—~- . 0““- . a. I. -. . . . —- .- v’v‘ - —.--- D-w—au- ~p~u -5..- . - - .- u. . . 9 -«—. . .-... . . .~ _.-..o-o ac.“ . at- n-u. .. 0 “an O" r ~ ~‘. r... o—socol n Q ~-.—-.. -_- ”7””. on— - .- .‘.v 0-. -n‘ A... - ' --~ ‘ I4 J 1 ' . . , - u . ' . - ' -. . A J . .- - I a . -u- -—. 7", “--.~*- .‘I- a- — ‘_.——vo ‘ Duv- o u- . o— .—-- a. .» u...¢ . .. ,.. .. . -- ..-. . .. .. .. -. . .4... .-. . . . . .. .u... .-...... H... - .. .._... .u . , . o ‘ . . , . . , .. . . f - l . 1': ' v I I . u ‘ . u . . I 3 O . . A . . .u .) 4 l f ‘ - - - ’ V. J . o ' - .-- sin—W ...—~--cl H..- .. ..v .. . .--.o»-...A-.V. .H.- .,. ..-.-.-.. - -.-. --. -.._.... .-- .. ~ ... - H— -4 l ' . . ' ' ‘ ;‘ i I. ' . . l. . n |., V ““1? l... ‘(H ° -' . -. -. . ‘ 1 , ' . K ' x: ' .1 ‘ ‘ ' n l .01 C ‘ ‘ _ .- ‘l \ A - «4---. t. , .. s H. .. -l«.doo.a.—A ._. ’. . h . u I .‘ I ll ‘ . ' I , s. . \4 I . , , ‘ ,' ‘, ' . . , u -. '~ . (~ , I 3 . ,, I ‘ . » . . b I . ' I D I) . W ‘f p. \ . . -_ H.—.—._.... . ._‘,. o... a- ...-H.. .--- r.-- .-.. . ..- . ..H v... - . . . . . ., -..._—ao- .- ----.-~-¢~..—-——. a“ . I . .. .. - v - _ .... Haw—g -M-.-“ - - - ' k —- . - - -~ .“----HH-_ .. ‘ .1 H. v.-. -.—. v“ 9 V. ( A . ‘ \ -.. --..- . - ._'-.. -......_. . . ._ ., M— _ __ ....---... . I l V . ' " - . H . . 1' . 1 . . . . u f I . ‘ . ~ ,. . . . ‘ .-. . . -. . - a _ ' . v. . .-.. . 4 -.--...‘-.~-..‘-. ’ .a'l e . . q . I V . , . . a I ' . _, . \' ‘ I . - .“ g g , A . ,‘_.i _ ' - - o—- . - - - . - -- . .. .H .. - -- .-.... - a -- H..- ... -, 4-. - ——..._ *..--..-.__.-....-—.. -.- . l .- .H. ._-—. C. D. 3. 4. K96 13S Approximately how many square miles did the district cover in 19552 Do you anticipate the annexation of surrounding districts? YES NO If the answer to item 3 in YES, are these primary districts and/or K—lZ districts? K-8 K-IZ EXISTING SCHOOL-PLANT l. 2. How many buildings do you have in each of your grade classifications? (EXAMPLE: K—6, 7-9, 10-12) GRADE NUMBER OF 1964 LEVEL BUILDINGS ENROLLMENT Primary Units Elementary Junior High School Intermediate School Senior High School How many buildings have been constructed in each of the categories since 1955? (Please include buildings which Opened in September, 1955. Major additions consist of six or more classrooms.) NEW CONSTRUCTION MAJOR ADDITIONS CAPACITY ' NUMBER CAPACITY 5 Primary Units Elementary Schools Junior High Schools Senior High Schools FINANCIAL STATUS 1. What was the SEV/resident member for 1964-65? 4 ‘- '. J. ‘ 4— no.“ .. ~ -or v p,., at. .._. ~ . T J’ 3 H' ') \ '10 ' -' llnl ‘ "' -H»«..— .,. -- .--. ..-..- -- .. _ ..w -y--. ”- —~ .... ,g,.. "" < . “ ‘**- 04‘-- ' “o " a. I V .1 .. 3. 1 ' . '4‘ . . . . c (‘1 '. . 1. ~ 1 v. . . . n . , . . 1,!) I A - ~- -.o~.—..—.”-. a . .-‘. --—-.. ,-_. -- ..._- H ... .-._ . . 1 --. h . . . \ ~ . :_ . ~ in..- -. ' ’ . .. l ' . . I . .. . . ...- -. _,, _ . 1 | 4 . . . . . r _ ) . .\ ‘ . I ' (A : . ... . ‘ i c.- ... .-. v... .H... - ....... . n -_ .-_ w .,_‘ ._.., . ._ .. H..,‘ - _ ‘ .J'. a. , . ,, . .v ..,. I! . - , 'v"? .' .. , , ’- .. ’e-r-eM--- .w - -- an...» .1 . ' —~-o- . :- .., "-“"-‘ w-.r 4.. ' v AA ! . A .4 .- . . ' l ., .' .‘l, , o ; v r... o ..', " ’ 0-.-- . ‘ n: - . .u—n- .. u \ " . x: H, . . . . . ,_ o . ~.-.. .-....- H.-. .- n... - ~o _-_:—- 4“". .. .H-.. . ‘ , a . , . . . 4' .. _ — .... .. ..... , ..-._.--,,,. ' - n~ ~-—~. . - . ..,._. -_~_. "-* - ~... -' 40 - .v . - -. . o- —..- .. -— ’0‘. __ . , 1 Q 0 v n u 1. 1. 2. 3. 5. 136 2. What school millage was levied during the 1964-65 school year? a. Allocated b. Extra voted: Operations Building & Site Debt Retirement Total Extra Voted c. Total Millage Levied III. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION Is a chart available showing the line and staff relationships of the school admdnistration? YES NO If the answer to item 1 is YES, please attach a copy or a brief sketch. IV. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SCHOOL-PLANT PLANNING Is one individual responsible for coordinating all efforts in the area of school-plant planning? YES NO (If the answer is NO, please skip to item 6) If the answer to item 1 is YES, what title does this person have? If the answer to item 1 is YES, does this individual have other major responsibilities? Which reaponsibility do you consider to be the most important? . . . . . . ‘ n 1 .' . . ’- . ‘ '. ~ " . ' ' ‘ o‘ ' l ‘ . ' . . . 3 . J 1 Q ' ~. . . - . . , - .. .--..... _.._ o C r .- l l . . . ' o .. . .O“ - w..- - I I l X. ’t ' . . . . ..,...,....M...-.- , . i .~ I l. ‘ w ' . . r . . . . a .-. . ..-.._-. -.—- . _ . ‘ f j I ‘ , ... “H... u.” . n. . a. , . x.. 4 ’ I _ - H . ..-H._-..... .. . . ‘ '- l . . I ' 0. l ' , » .. ,) . . . . ~ . . , ,. a . . . _ . . A- . .‘ .‘~- -‘I w". v a A *‘ H '. .r ‘ ¢. 4. I. \- . . -...--....-...H-....-. v- ,. - ...I . ~-'~--‘-w ».-.~. .u. . 1 s I ~ .- ,, . , . . . - . . a . . o v ‘ «) . . » ~ . A . , u . g i ’: . \ , " i ' . . . _ O i ‘ a ,. l .- I y ‘ . I . . . - - . ‘ , . . ' V - . u . . . » . . . , , ‘ . , . . i - . .‘ . ’ . . . v . v ’ - ‘ H - . J a k . ‘ . . ls ‘ ' . , .0, - \' ' . . a < s l . 1 . H .--_. .-.. -.-., . a. . - ~o ,. .. -N .. 4". .4 .. ,__-. , 1 ‘ o . ‘ '- . _ , . . . A - . i . . ‘ . _ ‘ . r . r ‘ . , l ‘ ‘ I ' ' "a I . _ V . ( p - .. ' . ‘ ) .- . .H.._«.... .v.. o.‘o_.- .. -. ~. . . .. _. . H ... a. .. .._ --_- .... . .- . ..._ ., _ . ..-. .- .— . - -. , .. . , ' n " ~, _ " v . L. ‘ i . ' .” ‘ " ' ’ ' I ~ ‘. - ' ‘ l ’ .‘ ' ‘ I - . ' I ‘ . -. -- . . . _. H. ..-—....‘_-- H. .- . _ .-..... -.-_ , .. . .-.. « H‘.- -.- ,._....-. . -. ,.........-. _.- . . .... . . - _ .. ._.. ...- —... 4.. n. - .- .-, ._ -- .._--,__,. n--- ........ . .a.. ..H -.... H... N .o 1.. ~’-'.--- ~‘ I- v in C '- nt" I *~‘ -—‘. 'I-““--'~-4. 1"; —I—&. up. -a.- .Q.‘. ; n CI . :- .-——’7- ~ ' I i ’ 4 O. ' .- . v _- -.... H _ . H ._ . Hy..- -. 04.. .. .1 -.~- nv- - . -v. r v.----¢-..o—-- .v. .--..... r... .- '4'- .—.-:».—n.... - . A I. v . ' , .. . . . . . 'I ,- t . . , . - .. -. ‘ . 2. 1 . . . l . -> — . H... -.. _ ,- .. ,, -, .. v ....—.. _4 -— » — - v----—o——.-—u H -n..- - -.—..... _. a n- H... —- - 4 v ~ - - ' 137 If the answer to item 1 is NO, please indicate, by title, the individual members of the staff who are responsible for carrying out each of the major steps in the planning process: a. Determination of needs (1) Enrollment projection (2) Saturation analysis (3) Program.needs b. Analysis of existing resources (1) Evaluation of buildings (2) Analysis of finances available c. Site selection d. Site acquisition e. Educational planning for a specific building f. Coordinating work of the architect g. Equipping the completed building h. Orienting the staff in the use of the building V. PROCEDURES FOR DISTRICT-WIDE PLANNING "COMPREHENSIVE" SURVEY 1. When was the last school survey completed which could be considered comprehensive? 2. What major areas were included? Areas of stuglz Background of the community Educational program Personnel Finance Enrollment projections Evaluation of facilities Other: '-- ‘ .—.—..._-..... ..¢. - « 'g—v‘-"- o" .q..-— mom ‘- ‘b o - «wow-.1 4 now-e. w-gy---vc9- ~.-..- -- ..-.~‘- n. -- - -...-,~_..-—— ~.. ‘ - n-u—n .—-.- -.-.~ c-«au-‘n. _— . .u.--- - . . —-\“ ~..—-.~u- .p..u-u- . u.. ...-..c—— .- . .-—— can.“ 0......n---“ -... —- .p-.... . --’ .- .- ‘- o.,.- .. -._ ...- u- -n‘-.—.o—.- v p", . u .. . u .7 -. -.-m. -7 §-.- . er...- ,~H--A-‘—- Kw- _. -~.—.—-v-...._ ...—-‘voo.I-o---.--——I-‘ d---v ' ' .‘~" It- . - -. r--- ......-.. .. .. . -a.-——--.......—.po an.-. .- § - . ‘-' ‘M‘- 7 A w—“flv h‘v“. >— .r-‘-".m_- " '7'.” '. ' —‘ I' -—- -A 'F" ~> , I. -‘ - ‘ ' . o . . 4 I . . ‘ . . _ I, s V' " . I - \ A .‘ -\ woe-rows. . . ,__,‘.____._ .-—- -. -4- .9- -. ...... _ -... - .__.-.- ...--..«- .. . m. a. an... . ph- .. .. .._.....,-.-. -- .-._. -p. .. - ._—..—.... . 7- _.. — r we. _ - . -— . . - .. .. ‘ . . __. . 7.. . . _ .. . ‘a'f. ,' -. 'v I ' .. ‘. I: ..| I x r) . -' t'ta v~—- . ‘: o. o. B. 3. 4. 138 Recommendations: Program improvement Site selection and acquisition Modernization of existing facilities Abandonment of existing facilities Construction of new facilities Methods of financing Other: Was the study conducted by: a. Outside experts b. Members of the local staff only c. Members of the local staff with assistance of outside experts d. Lay citizens along with outside experts and the local staff e. Other (Please specify) If an outside expert or educational consultant was used, was he from: a. Private consulting firm b. College or university c. State Department of Public Instruction d. Architectural firm e. Other (Please specify) Did the local planning agency assist in the survey: YES NO Has the survey been updated annually? YES NO What impact does the survey have on current decisions? A GREAT DEAL SOME LITTLE NONE Are there any plans for conducting a comprehensive school survey in the near future? YES NO DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM NEEDS 1. Is there an ongoing study of the school program by the professional staff? YES NO - q . . ~ .:.. .. - - . ,. -. ~ .v .- . r H-.. 1).: Y- ' 1! .-~ '1) ‘2 oa—u..—»-...~.. A» ' I v ' ‘ I .a r ' ' 1 ., 4- ,. A . , . r. . 2| ‘ IL? _‘ .ia a ' .1: _ J . - l .3" .- co- ‘ "".O «'5 I \ ' . 7 I . l 7’ :.' ,'_ a _. 'fi ' U“)... ' .. '. 33"! . .-- -s--. . a. .-- ‘1. ' , ,_ . ' -' I '4 I I V‘ " r ' ~ - ",' V A! l . ' J}: ' r1 )2, " »v-..—.-~oq-----—. ’ - 4 . s . V- a , . . ‘ . _‘ ‘1 . .' «‘1'. ,1 _ " ,' ‘Iurleo 7,.‘3,J\ . .. -e... “A“.Jnn, . " -‘ r ' , v . ' ‘ -\ - . .‘ Dan « - r - ‘ ' J' v- v v\\--~‘o—- I v . . u ‘ l : .3 -~- am-uigo‘u--. ---- ‘ a... 1......w-nv.——o “v I-“ u-vo 0 a \I- “as. a." .. .- r-‘ -. ' . .-_.._.-. K . .. --. .. -— _-~..- ..... . --. _ n. . .— I , . , .' . - ' > - ' : .-3“Z.;v '-.' ‘1 ‘.'-3.' F; “'21! J . I \ -. 4 . I t. ’ ' "' .4... a “A -n ' O.- f—‘w‘.- c ' '3 ' -.. r . ’9 ', ; 'i (.12 ‘5 \ | . . ’ -'.I\". ‘ A - h ' . ‘- -‘. ~1.."O- -1... . ' I . I A . ' ‘ , ~~ v u " ( - : 1. , -.._ a ..' ,U . ..; .° ‘ i ' ,.I . ‘ e - '. . . ' . .r 4- x ‘ I "‘ J .l . t f .4) -. . ‘ “w ox...~» .. . . . 0' o v v u - ' g ‘ . ‘ .._ 1 _._ v ...,'~._ . 'o h. ,J ‘ "i p I: 1 ’ ‘_. f ‘ .5. .' ""'. ‘f .‘ _ ., ..» _ 4 v _ t a 1' .4 ...~‘. .‘ _ -.-.~.-..- I - ’ .‘ 4 . q , , V ‘ ‘ ' ’ : , . .'. i ' ’n' «I _ .< -u -~.W.-..- on“ ’~~O-*-‘§v - . - - ---n- ~--- . -~.-—--I" o—- 'fi.-- . , . ~ . ‘ . ‘3 . L. , ‘ . \ ~ . \ ~ 9.. ‘ ' ' {“‘ ‘1 . l U ‘| '_5 ,. I 3 1 . l 1" 2 3 : A \ a. l 1; _.'_ I. “I. \v .9. . J ‘ A I’ . -‘ a. ' ‘ - ‘1 , . t 0'”; 4 .- I. J i.) a w - *- fl-vo .—- ‘ . » . . . .‘ . E '.‘ .lkt "‘1" - 1‘ ...- ...-.~ -—-—— —....w - 1 g ‘ '4 ~"“ w v ‘4' " ' ’ 4‘ r- - l2- -' ‘ . ' . ’ ‘ (.‘l -‘J; ’ ..,-. . now-.. .. _-.- - V . . v . ~V \ , .3. J 1 . .l I o t a. o' ’ .L. -- o ..-.. -...--...-. . . -, .‘P . h '.~ .- Q .. ' u. , a, . ; . , ... ,4 .. . I v. _. _.._.. , m -_ ~~_...., an—.. “-1 . 7.. .-.- .-—-.-»- n...— ~r-—-—-.——-— fid" ' ‘— 1 - o , ., . ‘ . , - '~ " :~ ' w w ': M C. - ' A! -,( . - ' ¢ ' .u'.: ’ J' l '~ - . ’ .- l - - 'J v -'¢ - )o "x . ' ‘ .-. . - -..x-......—-.,- C-n~-I>-.- -—....—o.. ‘ f I ' ' f P O! . . . ‘ '- l_ ' ,I , ”r f i J" . J A; . .' ‘o-'_: ‘ .‘l , ’L; \J 4 ‘ L ‘ I .- - . .oa-n .... , .. w— v “-7--- .. “-V. ‘ , w . ' ,. 1 -V .» I. x- (v - ;. . . ‘ ' v ‘ :1 V . .‘ ‘ s 0 ‘ ‘ V " , ‘ ‘I EL 1: . .. . . ,. , . .. . «y . o . . ‘ .. > t ,J .. I . A " l ' A' ,. _ - -. _. ..—- V“..- -.A. mo-N—- ' H 'K ' E ' '. . 1: h p A- ' "." \-’r f'.‘ a 3 ‘ '. , . . . ,, .. _) -. ‘ ,m-~ ., ll 1 ‘-[t g. 1' \— .. . s 3.: .11”. \J . -\ ' at.“ n J‘ I --_‘ ,,,,.,_..¢ - - ~-—...~ .w.. v u .- . 3.-r,\:"\ "P :‘-'r g ; Y . I ‘1 r; _ - ' . ; . , - . , . . . t . - V . i -" ' ‘l .‘ “1 "J - : .'| -. ’4 '--" z " i: \'.l’-..' < a «an. n—M- --~ - C. 139 2. If the answer to item 1 is YES, how is this study organized? a. By subject areas (K912) b. By grade levels c. By subject areas within grade levels d. Other (Please specify) 3. What provision is made for the communication of recommendations of such study groups to those responsible for planning school-plants? 4. Has the school district developed a written statement of philosophy? YES NO 5. Has each subject area and/or grade level developed a statement of goals and objectives? YES NO 6. If the answers to items 6 or 5 are YES, are these statements considered in the educational planning of a building? ALHAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER DETERMINATION OF SCHOOL HOUSING NEEDS(ENROLLMENT) 1. Is an annual enrollment projection made? YES NO (If the answer is NO, please skip to item 5) 2. If the answer to item 1 is YES, what method of projection is used? .. “a. o—a... .- .... - .rvv... --‘-~ 0... a ». _ ,-. -v---. r -~.——..~.-n .5 .—--— an 0‘ wa-v J... dw; a.-. .... - n... .— -— qv -r .u..—‘—...‘ ‘1. n.-. -“Or ~C§—~ ‘— uni- n 4-0—-~ fl 1* "" . v '. , a . ‘ t ’ f I ‘ . ‘ .I f ' : . o~ - . . ‘. ‘ ‘ a .. . V . . l , - ‘ ‘ - v A . . ‘ l ... . . . .. ~-m-- . . lo. .-..... ....._ - - . ,.. -¢-—’ — -~ ---c .7 - ..».-»—.-—.—_. - . -- vr‘ w;~----p-- unfit o-ooua du-qc..-.. » .a—yom---—---... -.- ,-_,, ,. .... l ‘ I f . ‘ .. . . , .- r 1 ,.,l . . .. ,.-. ._.,-,_. .' ' . v3 L t v 0"- .c....--_., a ‘1. »-..~--—. .- .-. . .a—u.-.‘--.~.- r't-q - I , __, -:v a .. o w , ... .-—-..._,-. o - '- -' ~ I 1.. ‘ ‘ A L -._ -~-. -.-—.-u-. A. u— 0...... " ‘ ' f , ‘_ e :‘l .. “31 J3 w ‘-. .. . . . , . . ‘ I‘ .. .i. ".‘.’ :. ' a.» 4'} n‘ I I: '- u . ' ‘ " .1 i . ,L :1 ' , ' v . . '. o. I t - o {'I' I .1 .0. . J ‘ "v ‘ O ' ~ ‘ ' '.v . ."I' \ _'-- ‘. - 1 ' L _ .‘;:J J. - |'_- g, *.v "—“-.Q gag—m‘—.-.-- --~o. -- I‘w-D mo.-ou—.—-—--- - .owM—nv .- — ~‘-—--u . ‘cnc-uu -« c... . —-- . v--- -v -- '~- .-—-—~---_-\ - -. - gave. “up. C'“Iu.-v or. ~ .——-—- - u.-.- o..- ---~..—."~ov—- *n---u‘.¢~-- o’c‘-—.-M'-'U'v--'n - .—-.-. sun—- c--- . aloe-40-0".“ .._..._.._. ..-. -- .._.-. _. . -. ... -...A..- -:....... ...—. -- H-.. . .-._-.... .V .. . _ . - .} e. M I - ’ ' ‘ '.. - ' \ ' .«. -0 ' ‘ ' 1' ‘ . . ‘ ~' 4 '. ‘ . I ‘s A F), W ‘. I . I s n . , v ' . _ ‘ , If. . . ': -~ , 1.1 It. .1 .- 4 . l" I "r ‘ .. . \I _ .1 -.a~A -g--~. 7..-..e- .- —.. ..v . , .r-v .... i " l . _ . ,( ".I i. _ . t __._ ”o. c ~ - - W . . . . ‘. , . ,. > .. " -r I ' ‘ ’-- . 'J L ' - ‘ \ v 'I'l ‘. J 1 - ~ V “ ' » ' ‘ O ..' ., .,,.l 1 . i w. ' 2 . A, . .. .. . O .- ‘ ‘ ' 3 ' ‘: .7 If I - g. ' ...‘ 4. L -. .' -. 54 ' - ‘flu -- -.~--i . . '1 -. u ‘1. , '.‘ ' . ‘ " I a . . ‘ I ' j' I a . ‘ I , . 0 > .‘ ‘ ', A gI ' , :, " l ._ a . : . t.‘ ‘ \ V‘--o-- «:4: .- .-;._; ,. -, . a ‘ , v M ' _ \\ ~ t.. o ‘ .. i I l , .1 ,l v .-..--. . -- _--...__-_ m. -..--..~. .fi -- o A v 1 O p.-. D. 3. 5. 6. 7. 9. 140 If the answer to item 1 is YES, for how many years in advance is the projection made? If the answer to item 1 is YES, who actually makes the projection? TITLE Has an ultimate holding capacity study (saturation analysis) been made for the district? YES NO (If the answer is NO, please skip to item 8) If the answer to item 5 is YES, who actually made the study? TITLE If the answer to item 5 is YES, did the local planning agency assist in conducting the study? YES NO Are plats for residential development submitted to the school staff by the local planning agency, prior to approval? YES NO Have written board policies been developed on: YES NO Ratio of professional staff/students Size of class Internal organization (EXAMPLE: K—6, 7-9, 10-12) Travel distances EVALUATION OF SCHOOL-PLANT l. 3. Are the buildings of the district evaluated for educational adequacy on a regular periodical basis? YES NO If the answer to item l is YES, how often are buildings evaluated? Who is responsible for building evaluation? TITLE —ua- ,, m“.-_m-m urn-us... ,... pn- . . j . . , " A I ‘ I ' I I-: i ,{'_‘." [J l_.‘l ‘ ‘ a‘-.‘ on u - ‘ ' O .,‘...fl- -_.~..-. I o.-......‘ _... . .c- 0%. ..—-.-o-.~-—--«. .o-o.- . n-~-o.-..-‘ ~- —;.—¢a-..o. .,.. ' l .: .~-‘_ , . ,» a... -,‘-.. 4' x ' . J I -~. o\—~- ’ \ ‘, ..‘ .-»ro~— ., ,- . ....... - ,. I’ I '1) 't . ‘ ;.' I 2 ~ a .‘ ". I O u r," .—’.A 4.. ‘ em —~“”-4#‘ .. , ‘ . .,_ I: .-L -- . A , ‘ ’ ' I " :1.‘ 4"1 2. ' a v' .I‘.' I I; a . ‘ ‘ .I . a r Ivy .- >-¢-o murm- -A-..-..‘~.-- ~----«-‘l . ~.-....‘~. ‘ I O . . . l, - -‘ ‘. .4 . ‘-_"-“/ . L. ~..' A .!-..' 'v \ 4.. »v nova~~< r_ ‘. « , M .3 , _. 1 - J l ,, . . .- .,h .’ .” 1._( .4. ‘x' .-V.:.‘ ‘ t’ O 6‘ ‘ . ; l A L' '1: . .l [v ~‘um‘ “00‘ . 1“ ~- _ V w( . ‘ . .1. ' . o‘ I. . W Q~D.‘-.-Os-. M“ 0“ .- .--..-....-.. .h ,-___._, . , .,.. .. fin“ - .— m- w.-. —.-.... o .A..- .7.-..-..- ..... “Vi.-- -a- . , . ~ ' ~ , a v -\ r ' u ' , A ~49 1 .I. \ .x . .w. 1 'l,’ . ‘ L ‘ ---“ a. .c—u—m, .‘M‘V ---.. he..- uns‘M-v. ~--.« , .. ":5 '1 .-.t . I. I't “ r .H.-—.... «n. V. . u " Al I " .. .. ~ A - . , - g. ‘00- —..—. , " . | '5‘, r i l 0 1 n . ‘, I a ‘ I . ‘ l; ‘ A‘ v y . ' - --¢--g——.~-'-~--Ano . I o ‘ ‘ , > I Y , ' . ~ A. - I - ,,a 5 I . . 0. ’ ' :1 I ‘ . l .- ...- -... ..... .C‘)‘ 4..-- -1.— .. -- nu... — .5..-.- .. , q . i. -- - . . 1 _ .v r- , . v .- .- ‘ . . ,1 l. t., _- . ecu-.3.» _ _ _....-_-,‘...\.v i- ‘n .a. -.. .77.- <- .~ .a. .-..—. - » .4. ‘ -~-_ a 0..-... "at .o- .14..- D . . _ . L .'- r ‘ '.. ». . o- m---‘ . u... ........ - . . . v ' ‘ u ' ‘. \Y! r ‘a, I It. I . ‘ I. ; . > . o -., . r. .. .. I \‘ t I ‘ o‘v .. I , .. . --.. -.a .- . ' u . V y --. f: t . ,. g ,. ,“ A 1 vI ‘ u I.; '. 1.1 t . . . r- a‘ ‘ _ - ' .0 I A . . ' | A ‘ ‘ o - \ I . , ‘ ‘. ’b I ‘ I V . " . .A . ‘ I I .. . II a i I _ .. l‘.;» u- ‘C ' . .‘ I .. K I ‘. . . 1r .,' . 1 <. I c , .‘.’ A e' . ‘1) "., . I ' . . ~ '; . ‘ .; .‘ .' ‘ . . 1 . I )' \ ..' . , ....:. V ~ 5 , .- I)! I. _ 1.,” .. r .. a- a... o~~ i -1..- A-” - v r-~_‘c . ' b 1 . . . n i O 4. 8. 9. 141 Who actually participates in the evaluation? as b. Co do e. f. g. h. Outside consultant Building principal Members of the teaching staff Administrative staff: TITLE Engineer Architect Lay citizens Others: (Please specify) Are capacity figures available for all schools? YES NO If the answer to item 5 is YES, are the figures for maximum or optimum capacity? OTHE! What method is used for determining the capacity of elementary schools? What method is used for determining the capacity of secondary schools? What percent of utilization of spaces in secondary facilities is considered acceptable? .. . . ._ r - ‘ , y .. O ‘ . f ‘ . .n . . . . _ . y' I . ., ~ .I .c ‘ .‘ .. . I . ' h . o .... . . .., "— .,. 0‘ .., . . I - 'V o. - '«7- » 1‘ I . .n u ' u-‘ In! 0. I.» ~ -~ O I V I IR A ' I 4 l I ’ r . -. - . a t.» ..—. —..,-- ... -- v . - . \ . , .. , . . a . . , . t g. i n . , 9 . .. .. _ .— ‘ I. - - D.C.DW . -. a. '7'»... A u.. —' < _- _, p-’_I-" ‘ “ ‘ ""~ .. . --. -. .A.‘ ...- ‘~..v...A_.o-. .. _ u a... . , . o ._ .m- .,‘..- , . . , . -. . . . .. v H -. ,.. . .I , . . ..,--.... ..i.. .\ ,~ ‘ l‘ . . . . o .-...-. -.. ...- —_ . a. -. 4...- -.,.~.... .. .v-h -. ... . -. .. m. _. A- -,..»\ "7...... . ~--. - , --.-. .. 4. .e . . ‘ .. ~ _ A .A .— < -— - , o , ‘ ‘ ‘ ,,. .. . . . c f. ‘ . - . . . . .. _ . . K . ‘-~.4.~woon 7-- _, l, -u .., so. » , - u "‘ '. . ‘ . . . . . , v. .7 . ... . . . . I . . ’ ‘ . ‘ ‘ . g a I . . . . - V., , . a i . - .— u-m... .a - o-..” . . Vs ... »‘ .4-»....-.....-.-._ w“- ,, -o n. . g._-r—...—. ~41 - .-.. - H... o v- . - -~ ~ . . t. . - . a. a". ~. ---— m I‘l' . a .. _- .,’. “a .. -. u.4m.—.---....-..._i_...i .. VA - - _ in...” .. . 5 --.~.... ...c . , .... . . ‘ ‘ . . I. , . ,' ' .. ‘ " -, . w . y. . \v ‘ A . , ... ‘ . 7‘ f. . ‘ I . . . a . , ., ‘ ,( . ' o .a- a . ' ' w-.-.- ..,,,_.. . ......f... . . . ..-, . . . .- u. 7‘ __ A. t-.,..- _.. . u. - . .- -—-._. ma-.._.. .. ‘......., W-.. - ._._., , ._. 4 V i., .u- ? .-~- . .-. .- ¢-- ,c... .... . .-.... .. . . .w... - .-_ "-m -. ..- -P- .-.. . . - , ,._... . , “ .-.~.‘.-- - .. u..-- ,_ ufl»- -—~ .4- .o. n .- .~ . ~.-o-.~ “ . w.“ , ,_ , v.-. .. -- ...—... at run -. - --- cw . , , , . ' . ‘ , “ l . ' . 'v, .. ~ .. - . , . ‘ ~ ‘ I . ,\ : ‘- - ‘r . _, I . _. ‘ - ‘ , ‘ . ‘. . A- ,t . , ' . — -.-—----~.o.. . --v-— v- v«~.- - - -.. v - -.-» --». -w — » -- ,, .~ - ‘ -. a ., .. - -~—-i~- ~-- A w- - ‘- --* ---‘--~ _...._... .. »- . . a.-. .,. A, ._-r.v.. .. .. --.,. ,. -. .VV y. , ...———- . . ,., .....A .-~--,— .,.-...-.....-- . » - a... -1 — ... _.. ._ ., .- _....—. 7......74-N V ~.-- --- - .-. ._.‘ --.~_~... -—..~.-.- .. . - a u— ,. - , - .4‘ M ,-. v .-....._p- .. -.. ,. . A . -v. --_ . . .v» . - - __..., ‘. . .. _._._ __...._ . -. q ‘. .. .. . . . ‘ . . ‘ , . ' . " ‘ ., ‘ *v- . - . , . . . e , « v . - ‘ c _ o A. . I . ‘ . l -‘ a . , J u .' O . . ‘ , ‘ , ’_‘ r ‘-. . - - — -i...» - a .- -. - . a , E. F. 142 THE LONG RANGE PLAN, OR MASTER PLAN 1. Has a master plan for future school sites been developed? YES NO (If the answer is NO, please skip to SECTION F) 2. If the answer to item 1 is YES, has this master plan been adapted by the board? YES NO 3. If the answer to item 2 is YES, has this master plan been submdtted to other agencies for review? YES NO 4. If the answer to item 2 is YES, is the school master plan a part of the city master plan? YES NO 5. Are there board policies regarding the master plan? YES NO a. Need for master plan b. Procedure for develOpment " __ c. Procedure for review and updating _______ d. Procedure for implementing _______ _______ SITE SELECTION 1. Are sites selected in accordance with a master plan? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER 2. Have criteria for site selection been develOped? YES NO 3. If the answer to item 2 is YES, is this criteria board policy? YES NO What site size is considered desirable? SITE SIZE IN ACRES Elementary Junior High Senior High ‘ .’. - ' ' . . h A. ’ a ' ‘ - ‘ I I V ' I r A ,1 .’ a, v. .7 Cr . , . ’ . - - 4\. . .. . . L.) ' , 1... ' ‘ A . , . ' . .. .‘ - . ’ , . I . . ‘ ~—.-. -~\mm- - . .. v. -. a. A. -.. - . -, l I ' . , no . \r‘ (f, I} - ' ‘ :7 ;; ‘ 3 A. . _ . . ‘ . a. I . i I ‘ i I ‘ I I i D ' v .I .' “ " V .- ‘3." ‘. -‘ ’ ‘ ' ' " 'A l' ‘ ‘ '. ' ‘ l l . ). _\ n F’f.L.' ' l I . a-edn‘ l a... I -_--~‘ _. ~¢~ I‘v- , ,. . A ‘ ." ‘, 1, $2.. , ‘ . . .....} (.1 ...- H . \-' . ‘ . . ,v J . .,n ' _‘ .. ; ,-‘ ,_ j .1 1 ' . ‘ . . ,. ., I ‘A . . I , 1' .l ' 3 ’ a. . ’ ‘\- ., a, a . .-, u-.. .w -.. A; -... _ 1,... ”s“ .- AA. " u u.-. A . 4.. .,'»,a. ‘1 J.. . . 4 -. . ~ « : a ~- -.~ . -. .j a a - ‘ ~ 4._ a. . . ‘ . . ' r ., , I rt ’ . g I ‘ ,. .9 ~-. ., ‘ O y .' f! ". - . .1 l ' ‘0 -. .u. a. -, ,. a N- - . ». p...—. .- ~'-. , f . . . .1 , , _ ' - - | - I x, ‘ .0 ' ' L '. . ‘ . ,J— A A ‘ ’ ' . 1 ‘. ! : v . ,. . I Y - ~ . ’P ' ‘ . u ' .' .(‘n ., ‘ . . .. 4 .- ._,,,.~ ”o- -.».... . . a A -A ,. 4 y ' ._. ‘; . . .,v , I i ‘ .‘ ){s A . Q -—’—,.'-.. - _- .. ...._. ' I ‘ . A ,, .. ... -, A, ,_- ',.‘ .t\'- . , . . l a . | .\~ . a -. cum - .-. .-.... .A... - . v r I" ' *"V m": ‘ :u?’ .r . ‘ ~ 4. ' . .- v- - . . . .- .4“..- -_.....A.. m.-.” ...,,.., . . , ....‘ ,. ., , , .4 J, l. . i I . . _’ . _ 3 . - , ., . ‘. « ~ ,. . x - 3|. » ~ . n 0‘ . , 7 ‘k .. . t x- ‘. . .,'. - ‘J‘v .,_. 3.), A. .1 , --r~» - .. A . / . . , . 7 IA. ‘ ' ‘ . ~ ’3 ‘ , x . t ‘ ‘ ’. . 1 ’ ._.. _ -..... ,.__._ .A. ,... _ . . ~—— . v - . 7. ~ * x .- ‘ . '* , "‘ , .. ~, , v . .‘ I ‘ . : '.‘ ' 1 . t ‘3, ‘ a .. . , . O I *5“ -- ‘ “v 1 ._—‘ .4 a v .N.m«-¢-v . A ‘ . . _ V a . ‘ , . A , ‘ w . - . . . . ‘. .. ,. x a ,7- , . .. , , N . . » u b g._ . ,,_ . , . _ _: -...-- -_- 7-.. ‘ a ..- . . .. . . ' ~ ‘ ' . I O I x. A ,,, , 'v). ;_ A . . .,' . .. >4 . , ' “ . o. _ V n. I , . ‘_ ‘ . ‘ J . - . P \4 ' I .. ' H -_— . -, m.-- - .. .— .v- o ., _—. .-- . n... .. ' ’ , s ‘ . , . a... A .... . - , c ... .. .- a . . A 5. 143 How far in advance of need are sites usually purchased? NUMBER OF YEARS Elementary Junior High Senior High How many vacant sites are now owned? NUMBER OF SITES TOTAL ACREAGE Elementary Junior High Senior High Are sites purchased outside the school district when annexation is considered probable? YES NO If the answer to item 7 is YES, are sites now owned outside the district? NUMBER OF SITES TOTAL ACREAGE Elementary Junior High Senior High Do representatives of the local planning agency assist in site selection? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER SITE ACQUISITION 1. 3. Is there written board policy on acquisition procedures? YES NO Who is responsible for actual site acquisition? TITLE Are appraisals made on land purchased? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVEH_____ If the answer to item 3 is ALWAYS 0R USUALLY, how many appraisals are required? . —.—. -. - -.—.. . _ > . ...,_- ,— a _ .. -‘~.”. -Ar- . , ‘ ->. ~ -o. . _ - .- - .Y- c -s. - - 7 .. n ,. ‘. x ‘n - --. Y _. .. m-.. . ~— .— _... .~«r I—o v- ‘ '— .— V. 4 . ., u. .7 . _.,_ --.—- - . ..-.....~ .po . - . -. ... . .n, ' r , . V.» .. e... n— . . V1 - .- .. ._. -r Y _... - . '. ’- A \ , . o M...“ - .— . w-—— o . ‘ 1 - 1 . ‘ Q - , V ‘ . . , . ...-. v. n-.... >- ---cw- ,.,._ .,s................. _ . ‘ .. . -- ..i-. ,. .,,........- . u . . . .‘ ‘(I . 4 ' , . . 7 ) - - - ,. f .,- - nu .. - .- 3 g ' ,, 7.} __V , _ _ ._ ‘ ._..-- s--- ---_ . .7.» .- . ...r.. , ‘ . v ...,----,.A ....A..‘ ,.,. 4 a r . .,.-. ‘\ . I ’ ... L . ' I ‘ V a.-. . ' ‘1 ’C 5. VI. 144 Are realtors engaged to make land purchases? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER Are specialists used in evaluating the site prior to purchase? A U 0 N Engineers Landscape architect Others (Please specify) PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING THE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL-PLANT A. EDUCATIONAL PLANNING 1. What persons are involved in the development of educational specifications? Elementary School Secondary School A U 0 N A U 0 N Outside educational consultant Architect Superintendent Asst. Supt. for Instruction Asst. Supt. for Business Director of School-plant Principals Teachers Custodians School engineer Lay citizens Other: (Specify) How large is the total group usually involved in developing educational specifications? ELEMENTARY 5+ 10 20 3O SECONDARY 5+ 10 20 3O 40 50 50+ Who usually serves as chairman of the planning committee? Elementary - TITLE Secondary - TITLE , - ‘ A . | - ‘ , a -. 'v{ A' ~ . by -. O ‘~* ' . ' . - . v-' , ..‘ . . , . . . . « A; ' I . ‘ ‘ . 4 . Art. ~ - . , _ .- u... v * , . —-4.o~. '-' . " , . . ' 1. . A a -..A,.. .~ , e w A. ' .-; .~. «.1 - I I , , ‘ a , 4‘ . . r . .Ir--. . *- ..-, . . ... , ‘ I | | .- .... .-. -, -wn A . ‘ 1 ~ . I .‘ M... . an-..“ o ’4“ -...,._~.... .. an a .--...a .....-....._..-- .._.. ,,. —. i..- - ~-. -_...- .«u. .... .., . -r..-._-~ ‘. -. ..~- - — u»: -~- _. 7.». .a. .~— ~ ~-. _,,,.. -_ . ‘_ . _,._ _ ,,-_ 4-... . . . .T , . I . ., - . '\ , < Y ‘ . I l V -7 A ' , . . , . . , u . , . . l , . - - . . - u , ~ - v - 7‘ ' : x ; , n ‘ . ‘ ~ -. . ; ‘ 74 , m": P . , . I _ . C I e . . , v 1 ' D - r 1 V ‘ . A. _ ' L ‘ JEA I “M...” . ... .» - -~ . - o»- - .. >v.-- o , - ...... - . ‘ ,.-.. ... n.-a. .m-- . - .., ..... u _ «o-a- - - n. ,.._ I- . a v ‘ ‘ ‘- ' . .. s. v . - .. ,.-— .......o< . . . —.- -. . -‘Q‘J. . . . _ ' .,. . 4 r . , . . . a , , J . ' I u A .. _— Jon-v ... . -~- .-. .~—o.. m-.. ._-..» , . 'v - l I .... . --- .. _ - . ...-- ..,. .... -7”... _..-._ . -1 ._ "r, ‘ . r ,~. .' 1.. k ' ,.._ -..A-. _ i. -l,, .. fl.-. -.-_ ..-..... on..- . v , -..- . . . .. .. er. . .-....- H-.. .7- . .- .... ,-~_ --_-- u... — 4 .. -— . . ....- .. o- n»- . ... I ..... ..._ -— .. ...-. - .... - -. , .0. unau— . -4. - -—.~-' - l ' ‘c l ‘ » 7 . ,AV. .. _,..‘...._ ,,-_. v . .- I .. - . ., . -... , .. ... - . -. - a. .I . a. .- .-~-.. -._f .._..- _.. , ' ~ 1 - -.-.V -.... ,, v - . 4-- g .,a. -. ..M.. . .a-.. yr. - "-,‘, _ .5“... --_—.-~.. I. . ,.. ;—--~ -~ .- v s. ...-...- . - -0. . . . . . -- __ - .,H,.-- .,A . - . ‘ .._- ... .. - ___, .,- -..... . -. ..-.- -. .. .. . . .- .--..-..« -,_..-- --._ .--_ -- --~—-—— . . T I w v a. o. -. --,.. ___,. T.. .-. ._ ,.— '- . . -- - -. .. .,m ., . ,-, -. . -4. - n. ., ~u . .. .~_ , ... .. ... - - .. u... - . ,___ .,_ .. __ __ .-._.. .o—u~«.o~¢ . . A ,. ,_( . . . n. . ’ . , I . . ,, .l. , . I ‘ , A I . . . 7 4 . . . .I v .- k A . ~v ' u ‘ . n , .. , .ao... .. .._.-_s. . . _ _ V - . . _. _ __. .,4 .I- . , L., . ~.. - runs ..- .- I ' ' x‘. - .. _ v , 1 A, . . _ . A V — .-- .,‘ l..- ..- ,_.- . .,nrr - .... - — - , — -~ u-__ . o- . .. ‘ ... w ‘ . ,7. ... , .-. . - m- ---.. : , -—.—. —-.»... _ I, -.- --- 4. 6. 145 Are written educational specifications develOped for new elementary buildings? ALWAYS____;USUALLY_____pCCASIONALLY_____NEVER Are written educational specifications developed for new secondary buildings? ALWAYS_____USUALLY_____OCCASIONALLY_____NEVER If available, please provide a cOpy of recent educational specifica- tions. were included in recent educational specifications. A. B. C. D. ELEMENTARY General information (1) Philosophy and objectives of the school (2) Community characteristics (3) Pupils to be housed (4) Provision for community use (5) Site and site development (6) General design of the building (7) General arrangement of interior spaces (8) Policy concerning multiple use of space (9) Funds available (10) Nature of any likely future expansion Complete listing of the facilities to be provided Detailed description of each room and space to be provided (1) General description of the space (2) Activities to be carried on in each space (3) Location and traffic circulation (4) Furniture and equipment (5) Storage (6) Audio-visual requirements (7) Utility requirements (8) Other special considerations: Miscellaneous requirements (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) IIHHHH If this is not possible, please check the major items which SECONDARY 0‘ ‘0 , . .. ’ 1 ~ - . . .- A . , r - - , . , .- , L ' . . v n.-.um-. . ~..' ” -..r -a' -—~-.—.. . '. 1 ’ 5 I . - y e . - . .~ 7 I- a. , e — o A - ~ - ( ' ‘ z ' .I t ‘v , '(3 ' '. I _' g v ' -.r ‘. . s I I Y! - ‘ ‘ " ' A ' 0' 8 I A ‘ ~-v—~ v“.- -- D I v '0 -V “C. .0; , . . v . . ' , - ~ , . . . . , ‘ . A, V . , . ,- . on. . ’ V A , A ‘ V . . ‘ I. ; . 1 ‘3 ‘ A . .. ¢ . l . -, r . - . u - ‘ x I l ' I ‘ ~ . ' . ., .. .. A . ~ _ 1 ) , '.: ‘ . -» . ‘ ., .' f. . , . I ' ‘ 4 ..o . . e . 1 ‘ I I u ' v y , . 71-‘3 r‘.n - I 3,: , _. . t - ' M Q - - J > - ./ . I o e , . . . y . x ' .A . i - ‘ . t ' § ‘ r. l _ - - k . ' f ‘ 9 v I: . . ’ I | A' 4‘ A . . , , , " "" ‘vv’ \- l- . , .. .‘r - - \ * ' *( .1 ' w , o ' I u I e 5“. -«h- - ----. I. I . . “ v . . v ‘ . . > .‘ I a ‘ ‘1 -. -.._.. - ..._.-... - U - ‘. '- ‘ “ , I f‘ a ‘ 1 , ' a . 4 . _' " a, ‘ .- ., , o— ‘-. n u ’ s .. .3“ . A _ . 1 . p ‘ , ' _» . - a ‘ . 4 u-.. .A . “vi, a - ' . q - - .- . s . ' ‘ 4 '\ .-»...o.. - - '0’.- . m . .. t . . . p . l ' . v v, a \ n ‘ o ; ~ 1 . o r A ’ . . " ' - e. .v ---.\l . .A ..- .-_ ‘ ' 1‘. ,-. Q t . . . ' I t ‘ , - . a .‘ 1 ‘ ' _ I A _. “ . ‘ v .- ‘\ ,.. —....- ~ «g. . .._.... , i . , . . __ . A . , . 7.. - I... ._ A . . ., A. . - \ —'.-. o ' n. ' . .,'. I I .I 'II I ‘ " A. I. ‘II- ' .' :.- ~ . . -- m... I“ “H I . , . . . , ~ . . \ ' > , l . -, _ , ‘. . . . -... t-.. - -.~ 4.... ' Q ' v , \ ‘K ’ "f ' u l l ‘ e I . f - ‘ . . ~ A ' 7‘ . , , '. . x _ v ’ _ ‘ ' .. ‘ . ‘_ a | t a.- ._.. 'I— . s H t , ., V,. . a . q ., A ,- D . . a I ,) I . 7 ' 1 A l A '. J ‘. . V 5.! ‘ ‘ I ‘ 0‘ Q'.‘ .. w .l . - 4 ,. - r ' r - ~ - 1 .. ‘ 0‘ A ' L _ v I . ‘ ‘ ' .. .-, Gav- A r . '- ‘ . , L. . . . . . ‘ ~ . n . 2 ..— A--. . . a , -A a ~ . ‘ II a ' wow...” -A v... I ' . I o ~ ' -' ‘ I :7 D ‘I g A . , . K . n. - . ,.. .— . - ' ,. V\ . A ‘ ‘ . ._.— _ .. . . .. ,_ , A y t . ‘ . ' l . . ' " . , -, . . . c 5 . . ._ '_ l . ‘.-..o-..— - - A— - . -n at.-.-._ m~.-...o. .- ._... .. -. ....-- _ - H u“.__— -».. - «0. on .- --.. n» .- . .74.- .- —._ . .—-9 ---~ _, _, I “" 0'. ‘ u‘ .‘ - '. —. u , -um- -_--,.~. 0' -- - “’.‘“ , we I ’ l a ' . I ' . .1 I . . *- '7' b. 0v .v— , - -~-,<.e’_ ,_ - .....- e--i .4. -— -v—* . . O ‘ ’- .-,-- » - .a- .m... _—A . v .-..A a. —-.- - ' a t ‘v- > -- u- . H: I -.-~ ll'~‘ ~-— » '4- C- u 0 ~- .1 O I .0!—. - ‘v V , . . _ .. .»- -. p.. .s.. -...,_ --, . .._.-. -. . .- .. ' .o-u» e..- . a v - . -._.-.- . .. . . e. - .. _. ~ 4-. L. . r . , . - --.__..—- _ . -.. . .. . 7. 9. 146 What length of time is usually allowed for educational planning? ELEMENTARY months SECONDARY months What length of time do you feel should be allowed for educational planning? ELEMENTARY months SECONDARY months How often are planning meetings usually held? (EXAMPLE: weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc.) ELEMENTARY SECONDARY Entire committee Sub-committees Other: 10. 11. 12. When are planning meetings usually held? ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SECONDARY SCHOOL A U 0 N A U 0 N Immediately after school hours During school hours Evenings Saturdays During vacation periods Other: If meetings are held during school hours, are teachers released from school duties so they may attend? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIOWALLY NEVER If meetings are held during other than normal hours, is extra pay given those who participate? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY “EVER h..-~‘ V ' t ‘A ' ' 1 ' . .- . r .-. ‘ . A . ‘, . . - - f‘ . A I , 1' —~-~ gn‘m... . -. u.-...-. _ V .. _ .,‘ A .. -. . . .- - . _.‘ . . - _ -. V Y ~. . -v... . -.- - v A. .- ,,--, e. . m..- . a ‘ 1" . u , 4 -7- .A _ "-1-. -n _» .. .._. ._. .i ..A... - . 0" V -,‘,“ - - . . , o . ._ . » V_._..III -,.., . .~ .A. x. . . u a. . . -e..- .. A .7 .. .A. A . . - A «fin—q. A. ‘3-. - - - 1...... a , , .. I » / . 4 . A, ‘ . I . L I . «aw... - a»... .. - - .. ,-.A. .-_,.... A v x s . .. x —-..._- -....A.—. . ,A. .5. -.~.— . 1 . o x..- —..-. -- .. I. .. -_. I J ‘ 4 f , 1 ' . . O e u- ..-. « a- —- ... ‘...-_.. .. - ~. .. .-. w. - 4c.— , a ' ~— .7-‘7 A u"—. ’ . r l . ( _ _ I a .-....... ...v -I.... -4 .,' ..-...- n ~ -— o H --n.--D-— ~p. on...— -. b-‘Ou—Ws ( 4 . 7‘ ' 'c o y- m--. .. ..-...._. -.. c 1 . u n . ,..A .. . . r", b . - - .-—¢ . I r - A I ~. . v.‘ D VIQ "‘ I‘ . . A“ a - .. . -. - Av 4 ‘ a ; .. g. ...- A. . . fl. . .e-.- .1- ~» ,-..— i .o m- . ‘M - ' _ t . . r ' ’ - _ i o ’ ‘ a. O .. ' I , 0 ' . I , - o .I ‘ I . . , e . ‘7 ’ l . A ~ > . - - -' -.- . . . ;..~..~ ‘ - m - , . v . ’ I ~rd~ . .- . ' . 1‘, l , Y r I ‘ l .A... ... I” "3 I l- __‘ .' y "1 “ B. 147 ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING 1. 5. Is there written board policy on the selection of architects? YES NO How are architects selected? a. Design competition ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER b. Open selection on the basis of qualifications ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER Are standard questionnaries used for screening applicants? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER If the answer to item 2 is YES, what questionnaire is used? Are architects interviewed before selection? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER Is other work of the architects visited? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER Are architects considered to be local architects used? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER COMMENTS Are local architects given repeat business on a rotation basis? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER COMMENTS v .. . s. _ . . - o p - a . . : A . —.—- - a- e-vu -q—n- ..- “.— 9 ~ —. ~ . < - _._ -__. . — . _,.fl _. - _ I . -_- A ." - . .....- . -.. AI .. .--. V -A._..- . ----- . -,‘- _ __. - .-, ,- . ,- . - .- .— - , -- , .‘O. ‘ a. 1 g I *7 \ . - — ‘- -.- -——. *u n . «O- o- a -_ 4 , . - — of n f -...— -F -7- . ‘1 -“--.-—cr “- , ~ ’ v—- 0-....- --_. --_ - _ .._, - . ,- _ .7”, , v..—. 0 .-\ u 148 9. Have any recent buildings been designed by architects with home offices outside Michigan? YES NO COMMENTS 10. Are architects required to have a master site plan developed by a landscape architect? YES NO ELEMENTARY SECONDARY 11. Are architects usually given a cost figure which they are expected to meet? ELEMENTARY SECONDARY YES NO YES NO Total cost Cost per square foot Other 12. Does the school district employ a registered engineer? YES NO 13. If the answer to item 11 is YES, does this engineer work closely with the architect? YES NO 14. Does the school district employ a registered architect? YES NO c. EQUIPPING 1. Does your school district utilize a central purchasing office? YES NO 2. If your answer to item 1 is YES, does this office purchase that furni— ture for new buildings which is the responsibility of the school district? YES NO . “ ‘w. ‘. --u- ‘-., - H'_ - A.-- ~. . ‘~' o. _. _ .,’ . . - _._ A .-..“ - ‘v—U—~ 'e-‘ t- ' A . - ~ . m..- V .L.’ .. - v... .- y r_. ‘ .. ~v ' “-.- su‘ .. '9“ D. 149 3. Is furniture and equipment for a new building recommended by the group doing the educational planning? ALWAYS USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER 4. Are "standardised" lines of items of furniture and equipment usually purchased? YES NO 5. If the answer to item 4 is YES, what persons determine the standardized items? 6. What provision is made for review of standardized items? 7. Is there a written criteria for the selection of furniture and equipment? YES NO 8. If the answer to item 7 is YES, is this criteria written board policy? YES NO OCCUPYING 1. Please describe how the staff of a new building is oriented for use of the building. (Pre-school workshops, in-service training, etc.) ELEHENTARY SECONDARY ‘ - . . , . - > - . , I a 7 . , , I . 1‘ Y A ' I - "I ' ' ’ I . . l r ~ . 7 . , - s_. ' , _- J . - ‘ . . ' I 2 . ' W ' I u - A t . O I ~ ‘ _ .'l ‘ .~. 5 < v . . . .' - I |¢ ens-q— » a . .... .o-o-s .- A n-” — - u --"‘ u I , v . ' " . A I . ~ .I - .- . A , O n . ‘ I . . I _ . I . .-— . . A ' ._ A A ‘ . l I A‘ ‘ .‘ . A v , t ' . a 7 I o 1 l A! - D.‘ -a-‘ > w‘» '-~ t o I Q‘ C ‘ ‘ ' ' I A . 0 A I > ‘ . . ' ‘ ' O A ~I ‘ A ‘ < l I I ‘ V ‘ i V . . l . $ A _ . k . t” _ . '«dv - n\-- - u. < ..~.. -m - ._. .._ -4. - . ...A.~.-.‘. -. , ~--~..- . - .g- "n u o . - - - a - , .¢ .- - --». v»- _ ua7 —. -7 -7 - -- ‘ - O<~---¢.— . . - ..--- : --- _ H..- ....a... - ., . —_--. H,.,.~. _. . ..- _,.,_ .._. Ay-A-g--. g... ._ -. .... __.. — - u- u .- - ~ <~ e-. - --' 7. -- -0"‘ < .' "‘ -—-o——.7.-.—---- ~ ~-— ' —-‘ «v - -...A7.._ I “oNW-Q. a o. - ._ .. 7 -— - .- 7. - - — ' ‘ cu... .1 u w -.7- “v.0 .—~..~ 79.-n a» o...“ A. nu. ,. . ‘u -u o.— . a n -' - _-. .A M a...“ A._.— -. .l-‘O- ~‘4-0-‘v4 —-.-.'-" ‘ v "" A ' ' .7 v . 7 I A 7 A, , 7 A . . ~ ‘ ‘ r ‘ r . I . . . 7 II _ . .— P d a - -u —. ~—-. - 7-.. - ..-. -. .A .7." ‘A.. A- . I ID-W A- ....- -A -- 7......- 7. A . . _. . .- .-.a—. —W~-l ~-.——- ~.—--— . a - -o < vom- A u ‘.- -- - 77 -77. - .A 7- -— 7.. . - .. .- u 7 A~A—...H 7 A.. . r A ...- -q. . v... \ --o— -- . -n _ .- t.-- - ‘--~ e- - -7 “' m" ' “ “ v.- .— -..A .- o- “—7-.-- -.A ,7 ..7.. ,- A A w 7 ..- vu— — AA.-. . - v -.- . o u 7 :— - - - ~-~- ‘-"""‘* - .-. .. . 7.-., A. “—..—u—FA . - .,. -. 7 A.-. A. .- -7 - 7 - --.¢- - .. . -— . -‘ 4r . . , A . . < . ‘ . l 1 . . I 0 - . . A _ a '. ‘ ‘ 7 , ‘ I o e , I- -¢ .7‘ .. .‘Aawo— -——-7 . *. "u----D' .~ . . '. , _ 7 ., ¢ .. o 7 p v . .I «I I r A . v ’ ‘ J . - . - ' . 4A \A- , 7 . . . , .,- ...- . . .- _. a- . 4 __ h—d - v r . ‘ R I . u 7 - . A .e . ~ A . a , I I ‘ I r‘ . \ t' .A . ~ - A . ». A 1 ~ 0 . . . a o 7 ‘ ‘ V" ‘ ' ‘ .0- ‘ ' I ‘ A I ‘ l : '. . . 'u ‘ ‘ ‘ I a a ‘ "T A o .- —~ «A ~ , A- ‘ ... '.7. .3 .- 7 .. A -> a . um w.- _. -. .. .. . '—_ -- - - - a .-..A -,A ... , .«. .,‘ ,_. .- ,_.__._.. - co- .- .,-e L .7 a.-- .a- ._ m *9 -. ..-.~ ..~ _ A. -—o . .-—. .7._ . v- - - — - »— A ' 7 - _..- . ._ A 7 A. o ‘ -.o o. -.._ ._--.~-. -.. _ 7--.-- - . ... ...o_ .- z—qr‘ —«-- »--- v .o' —- . -- ‘- - .. — . . ..» . -—. 7-A “.m. 7..- 7 . . __ 7. 7 ,,-.. . “-..“--- . v. .--. __. _ -- «7“ -.v» - - v -- 4n- .. .._. ._ _ .4 4 . '- -.. . -7 -.—-7 “A. .,— . -... . - . q... . 7. .7 v- -. ~-. — .. ”—.--7.7“ ' ,0 9 v — h 7 - 7 A77 — A 7 -. - — -—- —— ‘ 7- 7 -_ -.. _ . .h—L ”fl.-. - — --- A77 2. 150 How many months before the school actually Opens, are staff members usually appointed? Principal Assistant Principal Secretarial Custodial Teachers Others: ELEMENTARY SECONDARY ||| HH ‘0 -v<, ‘-“- O—L... . ‘ -- v.——.-... ' ~ ---——. J. ‘ ‘ —¢---¢.--. .. a! —_~ *'- *0. o g “.“‘-‘o-- .s- 0.. o 7-. . .h‘. “’ — a-- ”an... .. - a"; - ~7 . n ‘ u ‘ ->"--I----— . ‘ ‘ '- .- -. --_.. u..- - 7‘- > O o w non". an- --- 1. 1. 151 VII. MAJOR PROBLEMS What do you consider to be the three most difficult problems facing your school district in the area of school-plant planning? b. Cs VIII. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT What suggestions do you have for improving the school-plant planning process? 8. b. Co . ‘ t ‘ a , . . A ‘ , ' . ‘ . F - l . .. A v . ; , . r . .A A . . . n . ' . IA. . A i . . : A , I. f i ; . s A ‘ ‘ u v l _ n _ ~ -‘-I‘-~— - 77 7 v- w— .. -7-- - -- A" A A .- n- . ‘7. .At- .. 7 +--v . .oa—o- “—....g- <-A o . - o.- -7 n..—.- v ’4 --0 ' 7~-* 7 .1 a p-7 .A... .A —_ . - .- .... - -.- . . 7. r 7.- _- ,—.-._-. mt- _.-. l . - .. -A- .A-_.A .a- ' ‘ - v - -4 q - *~-— .. -.....—...._- .-.- - ,A . . .A r ._ ,w .- . . a... a- —._.. _ ._ . .. Ag, . - >. a.-- — ,flsn- ‘d -—-.'-7 - -M. no a.- -'o.--. . ._.. . .1!- ‘n ---~--..At~—‘ -7- —~A- ,- --.o 7a- - 7.... - . V... - ».- . ,- m >— sv~ ..~ --¢--. -.--- - n a..-“ l.--‘ .- ...-. v. .- 7-n .- «.- - r _- . 7 w. .s - - -~~ — . o... v- ‘ L .-H7-. a. — o~-- .- . 7 ' o—o 7hr... . 7... ..- .,n _ 7 _ . A _ g-.. -.--- -> -..- 7 a VA to». _, , . _ A . .,. . --._-.7~..— » .- '-"- ~-.--u— vv. “7 - .- .ao-A... .7 7- _.-_.,..-. .... 7. 7....-- 7‘ --~. , .- ~~7~ 1...‘-‘..—. .-F- ‘- - hr7-—-A - ~— «.0 MA_-.-4-..-.--..._. - -4. . ,. . .-- ..-, . A . . A .. .AA- .._- .a..._ ,, .. 4 ‘ .no- ., --.._. .-..‘ .. .. . ----.. . ..- -.. - . -—- once-.47“ o- A--7.o-- .,av _. a A. - .. - ht.-. . A a _. _ r, A- .—.~ ova-97.....- . 7»-.. .A . .. -_ .. _- -- — -. ' . 1‘ ' "‘ ' . . * ‘ ' , ( . , . A ‘ p \ ' P I . A , ,7 . . . - p, , H, , - . 7 . . ..' . . <_ < — .. A ,. . A I r i 5 f ‘ ' 1 O ‘ A ' ’ 1 '7-‘ '~A ' --. . >.« a «z .. A. .1 ' )A I k ‘ , - A 7 H -—- -vacd- - A... --— .*§-d v A . v-o .n--~-..-. - . v .. a o -'—...-.>.-....- 77--. . ‘ "7---.u-v —<~ .0 - a-o - - .- -o-———-—-.--7 .- ‘.-~r ~.~- --- ~ . .. -~~ w .._ .-.- . ~o o--7. 7 . - "v“ .. ...-_. ......-.- . ——- - ,a— .-_._. ~ u o...‘ - . 7. . -~o~—--o--w--¢-~ . a. o -., - *q- .-... fl... ~ F, _ . ~74 .._ ._ ---..-.- -...._. . . ..--. -..-. 7" 7 .a.— —- . - - A... — ~ ~n..-.a .. ._ -7..- . .— .. 7— - a. -‘ r .o— -..- ._,__ . v -;- . . ..-. -~ . .-.—7 .-—.- .-.- A-.. ‘.5 A ‘~ - -- - ~— '- C. v- - ---' “"-W -H .1 ”-- ..o— u» .9 --- - ..... . ‘.7. o . - 7.. u ‘7.— - .4..-..- .n . —- -—~ -. _.- - .‘v ~—.-.— *- A . b< - a vv-v-Q— — ‘0 .. _. _-._.. 7. . .n-. -~---o_. - \- -.—— no. u -4. m --~ Au”- 7 .— . - _ a. ,~-7 .-. cu ~O'c .- A... 7.....- “0.. -. A . - o -p~ - . ~m-..-..~ .. - .- ~‘ 7 a- . -. .. - . “—..-u- . -. . .. ,.. _ 7.... . A. -. . - -~h_--, _. ‘4. -_ .-.- .-A 4- o-—. a...» c s 0-‘ lar -—.. ”—... “—..— .- -- A , -- -. , A c. - .- .. . - A. — 7 o - .‘7 .7. 7-. .... .... _-. N v H. - —~- —- -o -. - .—...-—- -- ._ -. ~ 7.— .. - .-. - 7 ... -.‘.-o~—7. ~. . .-—_. . .- v -- Aunt” a“ -.. ~ .