A 53va 0? THE EDUCATEGNAL ma EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUfiS ARE} PRESENT wasmws OF SCZHQOL PLMJET S?ECXAL!STS. 'Ehosis Ear fha Dog?“ a? Ed. D. MiCHEGA-N STATE UNWERSWY Thefiaer‘e L. Drake 1965 ”ES‘S " ’ - LIBRARY Michigan State ‘ University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE EDUCATIONAL AND EXPERIBNTIAL BACKGROUNDS AND PRESENT POSITIONS OF SCHOOL PLANT SPECIALISTS presented by Thelbert L. Drake has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ELL— degree in W 1' >1 Major professor Date May 21“ 1965 ‘1’ 0-169 ABS TRACT A STUDY OF THE EDUCATIONAL AND EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUNDS AND PRESENT POSITIONS OF SCHOOL PLANT SPECIALISTS By Thelbert L. Drake The purpose of the study was to describe school plant specialists' educational and experiential backgrounds and their present positions. Underlying this objective was the purpose of providing information which might serve to generate further research in the area of school plant personnel. The procedure for conducting the study was carried out in three parts: (1) survey of the literature concerning the educational and experiential backgrounds of the school plant specialists; (2) a pilot study to refine the questionnaire for gathering data; and (3) the col— lection and analysis of data from the membership of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. Major Conclusions 1. On the basis of the number of graduates, there are a limited number of institutions which are attended by a relatively large propor— tion of school plant planners. II. There are no patterns of majors or minors at the baccalaureate level. However: at the master's and doctor's levels, planners are genera11y educated as school administrators. Sociology and urban plan— ning are desirable minors or cognate areas at the graduate levels. Thelbert L. Drake III. Agreements as to the results of the planner's educational programs seemed to be evident: (1) He should be an educator who is (2) familiar with various aspects of the educational program, and (3) know— ledgeable of the skills for understanding and working with people, and (a) freed to think creatively about solutions to problems society will probably be facing in the future. Elements of the educational program that emerged as important were-- (1) finance; (2) sociology; (3) school law; (4) curriculum; and (5) urban or regional planning. The educational program should provide understandings that will help the planner relate the educational program to the plant. IV. A trend is emerging toward a more specially trained and younger individual as a school plant planner. V. The respondents expressed as desirable the experience sequence of teacher, principal, and superintendent or other central office position. VI. Field experiences with buildings, sites, and community surveys are of value as pre-service experiences for the school plant planner. VII. The public school planner is usually responsible to the super- hmendent in a direct line relationship, and works with other individuals mm groups in a staff relationship. VIII. Writing educational specifications was cited most frequently as lming a difficult task. IX. The planner works most frequently with administrative personnel, architectsznd boards of control; however, there seemed to be a trend to- twrd more involvement of faculties and citizens. Thelbert L. Drake X. The school plant specialist is satisfied with the professional aspects of his position and is generally satisfied with the economic aspects. Recommendations I. Study should be conducted to determine possible positive and negative effects of professional registration or certification of school plant planners, and to determine possible areas of cooperation between professional organizations that have mutual concerns about the field and personnel of school plant planning. 11. Detailed job analyses need to be studied to make specific recommendations concerning both pre-service and in-service educational programs. III. Study of the relationships between pre-service experiences, such as internships and community survey work, and successful job performance needs to be conducted. IV. There should be further research conducted concerning the worth of providing more school plant courses designed for the specialist ktschool plant. V. Study to deterudne if the steps cited by the respondents in this Study are necessary for an adequate experiential background to perform Successfully the tasks of the school plant planner. Research techniques rmcessary to the total planning process need to be identified and in- corporated into both the education and experience of the planning specialist. VI. Study of the status of the profession of school plant planning should be carried out on a continuing basis to identify trends, strengths and weaknesses. A STUDY OF THE EDUCATIONAL AND EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUNDS AND PRESENT POSITIONS OF SCHOOL PLANT SPECIALISTS By \\ \ K The lbert LL. Drake A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1965 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to all who have helped make this study possible. Particular acknowledgment and appreciation is extended to Dr. Floyd G. Parker, chairman of the writer's doctoral committee, for his patience, his wise counsel, and especially the encouragements given through both words and deeds which went beyond the normal ”job description“ for a committee chairman. To Dr. Stanley Hecker, Dr. Charles A. Blackman, and Dr. James B. McKee is expressed many thanks for their advice, time and patience for which the writer is indebted to them. The writer extends his thanks for the encouragement and res— ponse received from the Executive Committee of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction and the many members who took time from their busy schedules to respond to the rather lengthy questionnaire. A very special word of appreciation must be extended to the one whose help and encouragement made it all worthwhile. my wife, Suzanne. ii ;, ‘ v r1 TABLE OF CONTENTS .ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Value of the Study. . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . Limitations of the Study. Questions for Which Answers Were Sought Definitions . . . . . . . . . . Procedure 0 C O O C O O O O C O summa ry O O O O C O O O C O O O C II PERSONAL DATA 0 O O O O O C C O O 0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . Personal Data . . . . . . . . . . Educational Background. . . . . Summary............ III EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUNDS AND PRESENT POSITIONS. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature. . . . . Report of Data. . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . ... . . . IV IDEALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . Educational Program . . . . . . . Additional Suggestions Concerning Optimum Experiential Backgrounds. Summary . . . . . . . . ... . . . iii A1.” Program vii viii POOVO‘UTUO l—‘H 15 15 22 39 42 42 42 54 7O 72 72 73 79 79 83 Chapter V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Introduction Conclusions. Problems Noted . 0 Recommendations. Summary. BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES. iv Page 86 86 87 91 93 94 95 99 w v ‘ .. 'v ~ \ . ._ ..._~ 0. ~ r '; a,‘-r ,‘ . .'.. .,"» ~u ,. v. v.‘_- .. v'~_‘ ._ ‘ l...- . ' . ‘ .. .~. -. -e_ , ' - I“‘.. 0. . l .- , . .,, C . ._.‘ '. .~ ‘ 7 .‘~\ v,, . I .A Table 1 Present Ages of Specialists by Decades. . . . . . . 2 Ages of Specialists upon First Entering the Field of School Plant Planning. . . ... . . . . . . . . 3 Present Ages of Respondents by Ages of Entry into the Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Present Ages of Respondents by Highest Degrees Held 5 Professional Organizations to Which Respondents Be- longed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Certificates and Licenses Held by Respondents . . . 7 Years When First Positions were Taken . . . . . . . 8 Educational Levels of Respondents . . . . . . . . . 9 Universities and Colleges Granting Highest Degrees to Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Baccalaureate Degree Majors and Minors. . . . . . . 11 Master's Degree Majors and Minors . . . . . . . . . 12 Doctoral Majors and Minors or Cognates Reported . . l3 Semester Hours of School Plant Courses. . . . . . . 14 Courses that were Listed as Helpful in the Positions Now Held by the Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Types of Experiences Gained Through Formal Education. 16 Types of Experiences Specialists Felt They Should Have Had Through Formal Education . . . . . . . . 17 Formal Education in Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . 18 Experiential Backgrounds of Respondents . . . .J. . . 19 Hiring Institutions in Which Respondents Are Employai, LIST OF TABLES Page 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 27 28 29 3O 30 31 32 34 36 38 55 56 Table Page 20 Number of Plant Specialists Hired by Districts Enrol— ling Fewer than 100,000 Students. . . . . . . . . . . 56 21 Number of Plant Specialists Hired by Colleges or Univer- sities According to Student Enrollments . . . . . . . 57 22 Offices to Which Public School Specialists were Res—- ponsible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 23 Number of Employees Responsible to Respondents. . . . . 59 24 Amount of Time Spent Per Week in the Field of School Plant Planning by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 25 Tasks Performed by Respondents by Type of Hiring Institution 0 D O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 0‘ O 63 26 Tasks Cited as Difficult Because of Lack of Training and/or Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 27 Persons with Whom Respondents are Usually Involved in Planning a New Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 28 Areas Viewed by Respondents as Becoming More or Less Involved in the Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . 68 29 Income Ranges of Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 30 Undergraduate Majors Cited as Ideal . . . . . . . . . . 74 31 Master's Majors Cited as Ideal. . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 32 Master's Minors Most Frequently Cited . . . . . . . . . 76 33 Doctoral Majors Cited as Ideal. . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 34 Cognate Areas Most Frequently Cited as Helpful. . . . . 77 35 Specialized Courses Most Frequently Considered to be Absolutely Necessary for the School Planner of the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 36 Optimum Times to Spend in Positions. . . . . . . . . . 81 37 Frequently Cited Valuable Experiences. . . . . . . . . 82 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 Administrative and Advisory Relationships in the Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A SAMPLE COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . B COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES GRANTING HIGHEST DEGREES HELD BY PLANNERS RESPONDING TO STUDY . . . C PUBLIC SCHOOL PLANT SPECIALISTS' JOB TITLES. viii Page . 100 o 109 . 112 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Planning educational facilities has been a concern of educators and the public for many years. As education became more complex, as the number of students increased and as knowledge about learning was extended, the problems involved in planning educational facilities grew. Concern about planning for educational facilities led to the forming of an organi- zation for persons working in this field. . . . on March 2, 1921, Samuel A. Challman of Minnesota, Charles McDermott of New Jersey, and Frank H. Wood of New York met to discuss the formation of an organization to deal with the prob— lems of school plant planning and construction.1 The new organization, the National Council on Schoolhouse Construc- tion, held its first meeting in 1922. Thus emerged an organization for persons who had concern for a specific phase of providing education for the young. These persons were "specialists," different from the archi- tect or engineer who specialized in design or construction. Specialized Training Indicated In 1934, Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, noted that the problem of school plant planning was being taken out of 1National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Guide for Planning School Plants (East Lansing, Michigan: National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, 1964), p. iii. the field of hit-and—miss and developed scientifically by a trained group 2 The educational background of the planner was cited as of specialists. being important. Thirty years later, school plant is considered an established specialty in relation to training. Willower and Culbertson distinguished four types of broad specialties. “The second, and by far the most num- erous, type is the 'field' specialty (school plant, school finance, school law, . . .)."3 The need for specific training in school plant seemed to be in— creasing. W. W. Carpenter suggested that course work and experiences leading toward the doctorate in school plant planning might be a desir- able direction in which to move.’4 Experience Cited as Important States have long felt the need to aid local districts in plan- ning school buildings. Stock plans and detailed standards were developed, even to the extent of telling which direction the building should face. Yet, there was concern for how the building met local needs. It was sug— gested that a man was needed in the state departments of education to check plans. ". . . the department conferee should be a man of school experience who has studied and is familiar with the problem."5 ‘William 2National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting (Washington, D.C.: 1934), p. 9. 3D. J. Willower and J. Culbertson (ed.), The Professorship in Educational Administration (Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educa- tional Administration, 1964),p. 5. 4W. W. Carpenter, "Training of the Educational Facilities Planner," N.C.S.C. Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 2 (March, 1965), p. 4. 5National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Minutes of the Annual Meeting, October, 1927 (in the files of the Council), p.42. 3 ‘W. Chase, Specialist in School Plant Administration, U.S. Office of Education, stated: This wide and diversified range of responsibilities required of the educational building consultant implies that certain types of formal training and experience are essential to equip him to better do the job he is doing or will be doing.6 Value of the Study Increasing Need for Specialists in School Plant If a school district has a good architect, is there still a need for a school planner? In 1927, F. R. Scherer stated: Communities which retain an architect with satisfactory school- house experience, and at the same time have a superintendent with the ability and the time to interpret the educational pro- grams into terms of efficient planning, need no other services. Those communities, however, not possessing both of these ser- vices, would do well to obtain such counsel before proceeding with working drawings.7 Twenty years later, Whitehead pointed out,"1n the majority of com- munities in Ohio, and elsewhere, the administrator needs competent advice and assistance in organizing planning groups and in guiding their work in the proper direction.“8 In October, 1964, William Chase stated: . . . loss of schools by fire and other causes will continue, population shifts and urban renewal will cause abandonment of some and the need for new facilities. Limited access highways are creating problems with respect to location and size of pre- sent and future school centers. The extension of the school 6National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting (Houston, Texas, 1964), p. 51. 7Minutes of the Annual Meeting (October, 1927), op. cit., p. 53. 8W. A. Whitehead, "General Procedures for Educational Consultant Service in Planning School Buildings,” A paper read before a meeting of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Columbus, Ohio, 1947. (Mimeographed) 4 year to include kindergarten, nursery, junior college, and adult education programs (including retraining; new concepts of teaching and the learning process are making many build- ings obsolete, thus adding to the need for new facilities. Estimated expenditures for elementary, secondary and higher education have increased from a total of $31.0 billion in 1962-63 to a total of $33.7 billion in 1963-64. Of these amounts, it is estimated that $5 billion was spent for capital outlay in 1962-63 and $5.3 billion in 1963-64. Obviously, the impact of these ever-growing enrollments and expenditures for educational facilities points out the increas- ing need for the importance of the educational building con- sultant. If he is to keep abreast of classroom needs the con- sultant must, of necessity, become an integral part of the ed- ucational process.9 Growth of Professional Organization Thirty percent of the total membership of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction have joined the Council in the years 1962 through 1964, although the Council has been active since 1922. Such growth may be attributed to many factors. However, as early as 1949 the Council's Secretary stated that the Council's membership included virtually all the public school plant specialists in the country.10 Therefore, this growth in the Council's membership would seem to indi- cate increased interest in the field. Yet, in spite of this apparent increased activity, Fox stated that the demand for school plant special— ists far outweighs the supply.11 9Proceedings of the Forty:first Annual Meeting (1964), p. 49. 10National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting (Indianapolis, 1949), p. 6. 11Willard Fox, "YOu Need a School-building Consultant," American School Board Journal, Vol. 148, No. 1 (January, 1964), p. 52. Description of Prevailing Situation Because of a growing need for school plant specialists, and the apparent increase in the number of Specialists as indicated by the growth of their professional organization, it was felt thatthe education and experience of the specialists should be investigated. Such investi— gation would be to describe the present status of the school plant spe- cialists in relation to their present positions, education, and profes- sional experiences. This kind of descriptive research has been considered valuable for making improvements in many areas of education. VanDalen described this value as follows: Before much progress can be made in solving problems, men must possess accurate descriptions of the phenomena with which they work . . . . To solve problems about children, school administration, curriculum, or the teaching of arithmetic, des- criptive researchers ask the initial questions: What exists -- what is the present status of these phenomena? Determining the nature of prevailing conditions, practices, and attitudes -— seeking accurate descriptions of activities, objects, processes and persons —- is their objective. They depict current status and sometimes identify relationships that exist among phenomena or trends that appear to be developing. Occasionally, they at— tempt to make predictions about future events.12 Purpose of the Study This study describes the school plant specialists' educational and experiential backgrounds and present positions. Underlying this objective was the purpose of providing information which might serve to stimulate further inquiry. VanDalen suggested this about descriptive studies: 12Deobold B. VanDalen, Understanding Educational Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962), p. 184. 6 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 ef- fectively to the public. Pertinent data regarding the present scene may focus attention upon needs that would otherwise remain unnoticed. They may also reveal developments, conditions, or trends that will convince citizens to keep pace with others or 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.13 George Collins of the U.S. Office of Education, recently pub- lished a bibliographic summary of research in the field of school plant.“l The summary included books, publications of the government, learned societies and other organizations, and doctoral dissertations. He in— cluded no study dealing with the background of the professional plant specialist. Therefore, it was felt that such a study would be a worth- while addition to the literature. Limitations of the Study As stated above and described by the title, it was intended to describe the educational and experiential backgrounds and present posi- tions of school plant specialists. 1. It was the purpose of this study to investigate only the bio— graphical information of age, sex, when the planner first entered the field of school plant, certification, and professional organizations to which he belongs. 2. Information concerning the specialists' educational back— grounds was limited to the highest degrees held, majors and minors in 13Ibid., p. 212. 14George Collins, "Doctoral Dissertations on School Plant P1an— ning and Design," School Business Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 12 (December, 1964), p. 9. undergraduate and graduate work, school plant courses, helpful related courses, institutions granting highest degrees held, and certain ex— periences gained through formal education. 3. Experiential data were limited to professional experiences prior to the present position held, experiences gained through formal education, and tasks of present positions. 4. Analysis of the specialists' tasks was limited to an indica— tion of what these tasks were according to type of hiring institution. There was no weighting of tasks, nor was any manner of rating asked for or applied. 5. The study was not intended to describe the ”average" specialist. Questions for which Answers were Sought This study was intended to provide information upon which more penetrating analyses might be made. Further analyses could be made later such as, relationships between education and job performance, job analyses by types of hiring institution, comparative analysis of similar data at a later date to determine changes in the field. VanDalen cited this, the seeking of higher order meanings, as being a function of explanatory hypotheses and not of descriptive studies.15 In addition to the factual data sought as outlined in the limita- tions of the study, there were questions concerning patterns of education, experience, and the positions held. 15VanDalen, op. cit., p. 215. Education 1. Are there significant patterns as to the number of specialists educated at certain institutions? 2. Are there patterns in relation to majors and minors commonly studied by school plant specialists? 3. Are there patterns as to what types of related courses are most helpful to school plant specialists? 4. Are there patterns in relation to the specialists' opinions concerning the most desirable educational experiences for their present positions? Experience 1. Does a particular pattern emerge as to positions held prior to entry into the field of school plant? 2. Are there particular experiences common to the backgrounds of specialists? Do the specialists feel some of these experiences are desirable or even necessary? Positions Held and Related Questions 1. What types of positions are in the field as indicated by job titles? 2. To what position is the specialist usually responsible? What positions are usually responsible to him? 3. If the specialist is not full time in the field of school talent, of what does the remainder of his work consist? 4. Which tasks are most time consuming? 5. Which tasks are most difficult because of a lack of training arui/Or experience? 6. With whom does the specialist work in planning new facilities? Do there seem to be any anticipated changes in this pattern from the specialists' points of view? 7. How satisfied is the specialist with the economic and profes- sional aspects of his position? Definitions School Plant Specialist For the purpose of this study, the school plant specialist was considered any person who qualified for membership in the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction as defined by the Council's Bylaws. 1. Persons meeting one of the following classifications are eligible for membership in the Council: (a) Federal, state, provincial, and local school officials whose duties are primarily concerned with educational facilities programs, and planning educational facilities. (b) College and university staff members who teach educational facilities courses, direct or conduct educational facilities surveys, or render educational facilities consultant services. (c) Editors of educational and architectural periodicals regularly devoting considerable space to educational facilities problems.16 School Plant Planner The term school plant planner should be differentiated from the term school plant specialist. By the above definition of specialist, it is discernible that the specialist can be concerned either very nar- rowly with one aspect of school plant, with a related area such as lighting, or with the whole field of educational facilities planning. 16Proceedings of the Forty—first Annual Meeting, (1964) pp. 125-26. 10 For the purposes of this study, the term specialist will include all those above, but the term planner will refer to those individuals or roles which concern themselves, at least as part of their responsibil- ities, with the relationship of educational program to the educational facilities in either or both long range planning or planning for a particular building. Procedure The procedure for conducting this study consisted of three parts: (1) survey of the literature concerning the educational and experiential backgrounds of the school plant specialist; (2) a pilot study to refine the questionnaire for gathering data; and (3) collection and analysis of data from the membership of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construc— tion. Selection of Sample The National Council on Schoolhouse Construction was selected as a sample for this study because: 1. It is the only national organization devoted exclusively to elementary, secondary, and higher education school plant problems. 2. The Council's membership constitutes, at the least, a majority of school plant specialists in the nation. In 1949 it was stated: The National Council on Schoolhouse Construction is a small or- ganization, but its membership includes virtually all the public school plant specialists in the nation. The membership includes directors of schoolhouse planning at federal, state,and local 11 1' levels; governmental and private school architects and engineers; survey specialists; and a small number of teachers of school plant planning.17 More recently, a breakdown of the Council's membership was published in the N.C.S.C. Newsletter. Make-up of the Council by type of planner is as follows: 117 -- Local District Planners 114 -- State or Provincial Planners 71 —- College Professors 24 -- Architectural Firm Employees 14 ~- Federal Agency Employees 6 —- Editors 20 -- Retired and/or Life Members or unidentified.18 At the beginning of the study the Council had 387 members. The seven Executive Committee members were used in the pilot study to help develop the questionnaire and were not included in the final mailing of 380 questionnaires. Development of Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed by (1) surveying the literature concerning the tasks of the school plant planner; (2) through discussion with planners and research personnel; and (3) a pilot study using the Executive Committee of the Council. Survey of the Literature The major school plant service areas were listed by Parker19 and McGuffey20 for state departments of education. A joint publication by 17Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting (1949), 10c. cit. 18N.c.s.c. NeWSIGtter,Vol. 2, No. 5 (July, 1964), p. 6. 19Floyd G. Parker, "The Role of the Nebraska State Department of Education in Providing School Plant Services," (unpublished Ed.D. disserta- tion, University of Nebraska, 195G, p. 45. 20Carroll W. McGuffey,"A Study to Determine the Services and Staff Needed to Provide a State School Plant Program for Georgia," (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1957), pp. 211-15. _ M ___._...._._._._______—.-—r_. *4 #1» 12 the American Institute of Architects and the National Council on School— house Construction lists responsibilities of the participants in planning, designing and building a school plant.21 From these sources, the tasks were listed for items 5/7 and 5/9 of the questionnaire. (See Appendix A, page 99) Hamon's22 study of school plant courses and a checklist for school plant courses for a current study being conducted by Chase23 were helpful in developing item 2/8, experiences gained through formal education. (See Appendix A, page 99) Discussion Throughout the development of the questionnaire, discussion with school planners and research personnel was helpful to clarify meanings of items and reduce ambiguity. Pilot Study Members of the Council's Executive Committee were chosen for the pilot study to refine the questionnaire. Six out of seven returned the questionnaire. As a result of this study, the questionnaire was ex— panded to include item 278 mentioned above. The format was also changed to a checklist form in as many items as was feasible. 21Responsibilities and Relationships in Planning, Designing, and Building a School Plant, American Institute of Architects, Document No. M501, 1958. 22Ray L. Hamon, School Plant Courses Being Offered by Colleges and Universities in the U.S. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959). 23This study is currently being conducted by William Chase for the U.S. Office of Education to up-date Hamon's study. It is alluded to in the 1964 Proceedings of the National Council on Schoolhouse Con- struction, p. 52. l3 Mechanics After the questionnaire had been revised, it was sent, with ap- propriate cover letter (see Appendix A, page 99 ), to the total member— ship of the Council. Also included were self-addressed, stamped envelopes for the respondents' use. The study was announced to those members attending the 1964 Annual Meeting of the Council, and two reminders were sent to each member through the N.C.S.C. Newsletter. Upon the return of the questionnaire, appropriate responses were transferred to machine data processing cards and the other information was tabulated by hand. There were 234 usable questionnaires returned. Reporting of Findings The findings of the study are reported in five chapters as follows: Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Introduction to and statement of the problem, and explanation of the value and design of the study, how it was developed, and how presented. Chapter II. PERSONAL DATA AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS Report of findings on personal data. A review of the literature related to the education of the planners and a report of the findings of this study. Chapter III. EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUNDS AND PRESENT POSITIONS A review of the literature related to necessary experience for the planner and related to the role of the planner. A report of the findings of this study concerning these two areas. 14 Chapter IV. IDEALS A report of respondents' opinions concerning ideal educational and experiential backgrounds for specialists holding positions similar to theirs. Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A statement of conclusions and recommendations reached after an analysis of the data. may The problems of planning adequate facilities have increased to the point of requiring specialized help. The need for such help sur— passes the availability of school plant planners although there seems to be an increase in both interest and numbers in the field. This study was designed to describe the school plant specialists' educational and experiential backgrounds and present positions. The sample, members of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, was chosen because it seemed to be the most representative group of school plant specialists. This study examined some of the aspects of the specialists' back- grounds and positions in order to provide information helpful to the field and which might generate further investigation. A .~ 7 r e u A . s . y,. t r... . ». ... .~ ... — a ... a . a .. .i . . ... ye. .. u ,. .. ... ._ CHAPTER II PERSONAL DATA AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS Introduction This chapter is divided into two sections: Personal Data and Educational Background. Personal data sought were only those considered to be pertinent to the role of a school planner. Personal Data Ages The ages of the school planners were of interest both in the present and when they first entered the field of school plant plan- ning. The ages of the planners responding ranged from twenty-nine to eighty-one; the median being forty-nine and mean 49.6 years of age. The study of school administrators reported by the American Association of School Administrators in 19521 stated that the median age of superintendents was forty-nine, the same as that of the school planner today. 1American.Association of School Administrators, The American School Superintendency (Washington: AASA, 1952), p. 447. 15 16 TABLE 1 PRESENT AGES OF SPECIALISTS BY DECADES Age Ranges Number Percentage 20-29 1 .4 30-39 48 20.5 40-49 70 29.9 50—59 66 28.3 L 60-69 42 17.9 ' 70—79 4 1.7 80-89 1 .4 g No response 2 .9 : Total 234 100.0 The respondents entered the field of school plant planning at widely differing ages. The ages ranged from seventeen to sixty as indicated in Table 2. Forty-eight percent of the respondents stated that they entered the field of school plant planning when they were in their thirties. The median age for entering the field was thirty— seven. Age and Education Table 3 shows the present ages of the respondents by their ages of entry into the field of school plant, and Table 4 shows their present ages by highest degrees held. Examination of the data shows that the educational level as represented by highest degrees held is higher in the younger age ranges. Earlier entry into the field is also indicated by the data in Table 3. The increasing need for new facilities and an increased emphasis on advanced degrees early in the careers of prospective ad- ministrators have both acted to encourage earlier entry into the field. 17 TABLE 2 AGES OF SPECIALISTS UPON FIRST ENTERING THE FIELD OF SCHOOL PLANT PLANNING Age Number Percentage By Decades Percentage 17 l .4 (10—19) 1 .4 18 19 2O 21 22 23 1 24 4 25 3 26 5 7 4 (20-29) 33 14.7 27 28 29 7 3o 18 31 12 32 10 33 13 34 7 35 7 36 11 37 9 38 14 39 4o 41 42 1 43 44 45 46 1 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 1 ,4 60 1 .4 (60-69) 1 .4 Total 225 100.0 225 100.0 (30-39) 108 48.0 L‘Mtwottwwmrmmwp—awwt—ar—a .. . CC... '0. (40-49) 60 26.7 0 O I \OCA\OFQLA\O(D(»P‘NJCD\014 -a>t-u>c>haa>elk>o>a)£r I—‘H-Pb—‘Dt—I .0. N H o ,—l 6 (50-59) 22 9.8 NwNWWNDWO-POPNNHQQV 18 TABLE 3 PRESENT.AGES OF RESPONDENTS BY AGES OF ENTRY INTO THE FIELD Present Aggs of Entry Ages 20-29 30—39 40-49 50—59 60—69 No Resp. Total 20-29 1 1 30—39 16 31 l 48 pi} 40-49 12 47 9 2 70 g p 50-59 2 22 33 7 2 66 ‘ Wirfi 60—69 2 6 17 14 1 2 42 . 70—79 3 l 4 6 80-89 1 l - No response 2 2 g n 1 TABLE 4 PRESENT AGES OF PLANNERS BY HIGHEST DEGREES HELD Present Highest Degrees Held Ages None Bachelor's Master's 6-Yr. Doctor's No Resp. Total 20-29 1 1 30-39 6 13 28 48 40-49 1 l4 l4 5 36 70 50-59 4 ll 22 4 24 66 60-69 1 S 13 4 18 42 70-79 1 3 4 80—89 1 1 No response 2 Membership in Professional Organizations which they were members. The respondents were asked to indicate those organizations of In addition to belonging to the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, the respondents belonged to the organizations as indicated in Table 5. This list is not exhaustive. .llniis p.542») ...!!qu é. ... .l. . 19 There were thirty-five professional organizations mentioned at least once in addition to those listed. Of these thirty-five, those men— tioned five times or more were —— (a) a state school administrator's organization - 17; (b) an engineering society — 16; (c) a state school business officials‘ organization - 13; (d) The Northeast Coun- cil on Schoolhouse Construction - 12; (e) American Educational Research Association — 10; (f) The School Facilities Council — 9; (g) National Society for the Study of Education — 8; and (h) The American Associa- tion of University Professors — 7. Also, there were a number of frater— nal and civic groups mentioned. TABLE 5 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH RESPONDING SPECIALISTS BELONGED Organization Number Percentage American Association of School Administrators 133 56.8 American Institute of Architects 20 8.5 Association of School Business Officials 64 27.4 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 22 9.4 National Education Association 154 65.8 Phi Delta Kappa 142 60.7 State Architects Association 27 11.5 State Education Association 170 72.6 Certificates and Licenses Held The respondents were asked to list the certificates and licenses which they held. The most commonly listed were the state teaching certificate and state administrative certificate. Seventy of the 20 specialists did not respond to the item or indicated that they held no certificate or license. A few stated that their doctoral degrees were valid certification for the state in which they worked. Table 6 shows the distribution of responses. TABLE 6 CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES HELD BY RESPONDENTS Type of Certificate Number Percent State Teaching 89 38.0 State Administrative 87 37.2 State Architects 15 6.7 Professional Engineer 9 3.7 State Supervisory 6 2.6 Civil Engineer 2 .9 Junior College Teaching 2 .9 General Building Contractor 1 .4 Power Engineer 1 ,4 Province School Inspector 1 .4 Public Health Inspector l .4 Real Estate Broker 1 ,4 Master Steamfitter l .4 None or no reply 70 29.9 Years When First Positions Were Taken With the exception of 1963 and 1964, the data represented in Table 7 correspond closely with the patterns in which specialists be- came members of the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. This would seem to indicate that the specialists returning question- naires were representative of the whole sample from that respect. ‘7 - i. I t. - .31 _-':'-VJ 21 TABLE 7 YEARS WHEN FIRST POSITIONS WERE TAKEN —‘-. ___ -_— Number of Number of Year . Year Respondents Respondents 1916 l 1944 2 -——— - 1945 6 1922 1 1946 6 1923 - 1947 16 1924 2 1948 12 1925 2 1949 10 —-—— - 1950 10 1928 l 1951 16 —-—- — 1952 5 1932 l 1953 3 1933 2 1954 11 1934 2 1955 10 1935 — 1956 11 1936 2 1957 12 1937 - 1958 17 1938 1 1959 8 1939 4 1960 4 1940 3 1961 7 1941 4 1962 19 1942 1 1963 6 1943 — 1964 4 ‘ No response 12 Sex Of the 234 specialists responding to the questionnaire, two were women. One worked on the editorial staff of a magazine devoting con— siderable space to school plant problems, and the other was an archi- tect who is currently attending graduate school studying city and regional planning. At this point, the field of school planning is mostly a man's world. g-..” 6». .‘.....~£I.. .I. 2,164.1“... 1...; . . _ .. A. I T.! 22 Educational Background Review of Literature Related to Education Shaw pointed out that, "No course or array of courses can guarantee wisdom.” He further stated that, "Preparation is liter— ally endless, and 'living' means growing.“2 The following comments and findings were cited in light of Shaw's statements. Furthermore, accepting the fact of individual differences between persons, in— stitutions, and positions, it was not a purpose of this study to cite the "averages" as being ideal. General Educational Background The literature generally agrees that the school planner must first be an educator, then he may also be conversant with the areas of engineering and architecture. Here William Caudill cautions that the school planner should not assume the role of an amateur architect. Englehardt stated: Training in educational philosophy and psychology, in educa— tional methods and curriculum, should be extensive and con— tinuous. An essential is graduate courses in all fields of elementary, secondary, and general school administration, in- cluding financing, school plant development, maintenance and operation problems, equipment, and transportation programs. Associated training should be in the fieldsof city planning and general city administration. Education in engineering and service in an architectural organization assure coordi— nation of theprofesssional activities.3 2Archibald B. Shaw, "One View: Preparing Administrators,“ Overview, Vol. 3, No. 8 (August, 1962), p. 9. 3N. L. Englehardt, et. al., School Planning and Building Handbook (New York: F. W. Dodge Corp., 1956), p. 11. E125", ., 1.x .dlfawmql El Plan! arid . . . A. . . p . a m _ 23 The New England School Development Council also pointed out training in general educational administration as valuable to the school planner.l4 Undergraduate training for the school planner was not dis— cussed in the literature except in relation to the preparation of school administrators in general. Specialized Training Although the superintendent is responsible for overseeing the planning of facilities, he usually does not have the time to devote to the process, and in many instances does not have the specialized knowledge necessary. Herrick stated: The superintendent who is more likely to read school-plant literature and otherwise learn of practices elsewhere, will in general have a more comprehensive understanding of these matters, but he will lack the intimate knowledge that comes from day-to-day use of the facilities. The competent school plant specialist should have both the comprehensive under— standing and the intimate knowledge.5 He further stated that the planner should know: (1) What kinds of facilities are and are not effective in fostering various phases of the school program; (2) Alteration of existing facilities; and (3) Success and failures of teachers in the use of various types of facilities. Herrick refers to this specialized knowledge as coming “The Road to Better Schools (Cambridge, Mass.: The New England School Development Council, 1955), p. 50. 53. H. Herrick, et. a1. From School Program to School Plant (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1956), p. 136. 24 about through day—to—day use of the facilities. Yet, in order to perceive adequately what is and is not effective, or a possible alteration, the planner should have some background as to what is educationally realistic. Boles suggested that the school planner is expected to be a curriculum specialist to plan around the program, and a specialist in conducting surveys of building needs.6 He further pointed out that ". . . there is a generous amount of literature so that a man could well become a specialist in any of the elements of school buildings, whether it is elementary, secondary or higher education."7 Carpenter wrote that the fifth year of study for the person intending to become a school plant planner might include ”finance, engineering, public health, architecture, data processing, drawing, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, state and national government, and statistical procedure, if not previously taken.”8 Welsh commented that some schools were providing that the students get out into the school systems and experience plant problems within the framework of their formal education.9 6National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, Proceedings of the Forty-first Annual Meeting (Houston, Texas, 1964), p. 56. 7Ibid., p. 57. 8W. W. Carpenter, ”Training of the Educational Facilities Planner," N.C.S.C. Newsletter, Volume 3, No. 2 (March, 1965), p. 3. 9Proceedings of the Forty—first Annual Meeting (1964), p. 50. 25 School Plant Courses In 1959, Hamon conducted a study for the U.S. Office of Education: (1) to ascertain (a) the content of school-plant courses as set forth in catalog descriptions, (b) the extent to which such courses are preparing general school adminis— trators for their school-plant responsibilities, and (c) the extent to which these courses are preparing school— plant specialists; (2) to provide some background data relative to the need for improving the preparation of school-plant specialists; and (3) to prepare a directory of school—plant courses for the benefit of persons wish- ing to know where and when such courses are being offered.10 Of the 120 courses listed, thirty—four were offered to prepare school plant Specialists, principals and superintendents, but only nine were offered specifically for school plant specialists. Chase cited some results from a current study being conducted by the U.S. Office of Education to update Hamon's study. There was an average of 97 different school plant courses of— fered during each of the summer terms between 1959 and 1964 and an average of 140 each year during the academic years 1959-1963. Major topics areas included in the courses and the frequency with which they were covered were—— 8. Philosophy of school building planning b. School building surveys c. Planning functional facilities d. Developing educational specifications e. Functions and responsibilities of board of education, superintendent, architect, educational consultant, and others in the building program f. Administering the school construction program g. Building costs and economies h. Financing the school building program (capital outlay) i. Maintenance and operation j. Furniture and equipment k. School site, selection,and utilization 1. School building design problemsll 10Ray L. Hamon, School Plant Courses Offered by Colleges and Universities in the United States, 1956-59, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), p. 1. .LTroceedings of the Forty-first Annual Meeting (1964), p. 52. T. VII." __f' 26 Such a list of content seemed to be quite comprehensive; enough so that each topic area might be developed into a separate course. Boles reacted to this problem of the two or three hour university course. "I do think that we can teach a person . . . a cohesive theory of school plant planning and development."12 He also suggested that helping the student to understand how to organ- ize and utilize human resources available in any school district, and directing his attention to sources of further information are necessary in a school plant course. The literature usually emphasizes that merely a few courses in school plant planning are inadequate in educating the school plant planner. He needs additional work as suggested above. Report of Data Educational Levels The planners were asked to indicate the highest degree they held. Forty-seven percent of the 234 planners responding to this item held the doctorate; 5.6 percent held a six-year diploma or equivalent certificate, and 26.9 percent held the master's degree. Table 8 shows the educational levels of the respondents All levels of education were distributed proportionately among the age levels. The doctorate in education deviated slightly from the pattern of the other degrees in that 61.6 percent holding this degree were in their thirties or forties. The other degrees were more evenly distributed. lzlbid. .\\’f'_ . 27 TABLE 8 EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF RESPONDING PLANNERS Q Degree Number Percent Ph.D. 32 13.7 Ed.D. 78 33.3 Six-Year Diploma 13 5.6 Master's 63 26.9 Bachelor's 39 16.7 Non-degree 7 3.0 No response 2 .9 Total 234 100.0 The general educational level of the school planners responding to this study was higher than that of superintendents.13 One factor contributing to this difference is the inclusion of sixty planners em- Ifloyed by colleges and universities. Universities and Colleges Granting Highest Degrees There were eleven universities or colleges which granted the maSter's or doctorate degrees to five or more specialists as indicated bY'I‘able 9. A complete listing of universities and colleges granting the highest degrees held is in Appendix B. The University of Oregon and Indiana University each granted four master's and doctoral degrees to reSponding specialists. Eighty—five (41.9 percent) of the planners resPonding to this item were educated at eleven (13.4 percent) of the \ S 13AmericanAssociation of School Administrators, The American ~521221_Superintendency, op. cit., p. 446. 1 I."N first" :- I 28 hmtitutions listed. With the exception of a slight concentration in the Midwest, these eleven institutions are well distributed geographi— cally. TABLE 9 UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES GRANTING HIGHEST DEGREES HELD BY RES PONDENTS _ _ - _ University or College Doctorate Six-Year Master's Total Colorado State Columbia Univ., Teacher Col. 2 Michigan State University University of Michigan University of Missouri University of Nebraska Ohio State University Peabody College Stanford University University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin mmwwoooopppo: NNNNl—I mommomomcn-Pm H wHHp—IH ¥ Majors and Minors Baccalaureate Degree.--The planners were asked to indicate their majors and minors at all degree levels. At the undergraduate level there was no pattern other than there seemed to be a fairly even dis- tribution between the undergraduate majors. There were thirty—two majors named. Almost seventy-five percent of the respondents named the ten majors listed in Table 10. The eighteen respondents naming erugineering majored in civil, electrical, general, mining or metal erlgineering. Biological, zoological, and general science majors were 81530 grouped under one heading of science. 29 The seven minors shown on Table 10 represent those taken by 72.7 percent of the planners responding to this item. There were thirty-three minors named. TABLE 10 UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS AND MINORS OF SPECIALISTS W Major Frequency Minor Frequency Mathematics 28 Mathematics 22 Sockfl.Studies 27 English 21 Engineering 18 Science 20 Education 17 Education 19 History 16 Social Studies 18 Industrial Arts 16 Physics 11 Architecture 14 History 9 Science 14. English ' 11 Business.Administration 10 — There seemed to be little relationship between the type of under— graduate major or minor and the choice of entering the field of school Plant planning. Master's Degree.--There were twenty-four majors reported on the master's degree level by 170 specialists. Of these 170 specialists, 105 (61.7 percent) reported educational administration as their major. Table 11 shows all master's level majors named more than once and minors liSted three times or more. The ten majors shown were taken by 91.9 perCent of the responding planners. Ninety planners reported a total of thirty-two master's degree minOrs. The thirteen minors listed were named by 72.2 percent of the resPonding planners. The inclusion of school plant as a minor area “as the first mention of this field. 30 TABLE 11 MASTER'S DEGREE MAJORS.AND MINORS jMajor Number Percent Minor Number Percent Educ. Adminis. 105 61.7 Educ. Adminis. 11 12.2 Education 29 17.0 Education 9 10.0 History 4 2.4 Social Science 8 8.8 Architecture 3 1.8 Curriculum 7 7.7 Educ. Psychology 3 1.8 Chemistry 5 5.5 Guidance 3 1.8 Guidance 4 4.4 Industrial Arts 3 1.8 Psychology 4 4.4 Mathematics 2 1.2 Economics 3 3.3 Music 2 1.2 Mathematics 3 3.3 Physical Education 2 1.2 Physical Education 3 3.3 School Plant 3 3.3 Sociology 3 3.3 Supervision 3 3.3 ' Doctorate Degree.--Of the 102 specialists reporting doctoral “Bjors, ninety-three (91.2 percent) reported educational administration as their major. The minor or cognate area varied nearly as much as on the master's level. There were twenty—three reported, the most com— mon being sociology and guidance as indicated by Table 12. Two planners reported a major in school plant and four reported SChool plant as a minor. TABLE 12 DOCTORAL MAJORS AND MINORS OR COGNATES REPORTED ‘._ :Major Number Percent Minor Number Percent \ EduC. Adminis. 93 91.2 Sociology 11 16.4 E{heation 3 2.9 Guidance 6 9.0 HlSher Education 2 2.0 Social Science 5 7.5 SCIlool Plant 2 2.0 Curriculum 4 5.9 uPil Personnel 1 1.0 Psychology 4 5.9 Qhool Bus. Manage. l 1.0 School Plant 4 5.9 Business Adminis. 3 4.5 Economics 3 4.5 Higher Education 3 4.5 History 3 4.5 31 School Plant Courses One hundred thirty-two respondents (56.4 percent) reported hav— ing taken courses in school plant planning. Occasionally, a specialist would report finance or law as a course in school plant. These were not tabulated as school plant courses. Sixty—nine (29.5 percent) res- pondents had six semester hours or less of school plant courses; twenty- ““fi 1 five (10.7 percent) had seven to nine semester hours, and thirty-eight (16.2 percent) had more than nine semester hours of school plant courses. With 43.6 percent of the respondents reporting no courses taken hischool plant, it is obvious that such courses are not necessary to hold a position in school plant planning. Further investigation would be necessary in order to determine any relationship between formal educa- tion in school plant and job performance. Table 13 shows the distribu- tion of semester hours. TABLE 13 SEMESTER HOURS OF SCHOOL PLANT COURSES k Semester Number of Semester Number of Percent Percent Hours Specialists Hours Specialists 1 —— -- 15 9 3.8 2 13 5.4 16 2 .8 3 21 9.0 17 -- -- 4 4 1.7 18 4 1.7 S l .4 19 —— —— 6 30 12.8 20 -— -- 7 2 .8 21 2 .8 8 7 3.0 22 —- -- 9 16 7.0 23 —— —- 10 4 1.7 24 1 .4 11 2 .8 25 -- -— 12 11 4.6 26 —— -- 13 1 .4 27 -- -- 14 l .4 28 1 .4 32 Helpful Related Courses In order to determine if there were related courses helpful to the school plant planner in his present position, the planners were asked to list any courses they felt were helpful. Of the fifty courses listed, the four most commonly mentioned were (1) finance, (2) administration, (3) school law and (4) sociology. Table 14 shows all courses named three times or more and the frequency with which they were named. TABLE 14 COURSES LISTED AS BEING HELPFUL IN THE POSITIONS NOW HELD BY THE SPECIALISTS fl -— Name of Course Frequency Name of Course Frequency Finance 40 Statistics 6 Administration 25 Architecture* 5 School Law 21 Political Science 5 Sociology 15 Surveys 5 Psychology 8 Drafting/Mech. Drawing* 5 BUSiness Administration 6 Government 3 Philosophy 6 History of Education 3 PUblic Relations 6 Maintenance 3 Research 6 Urban Planning 3 \ *Indicates being named by persons other than architects. ExPErience Through Formal Education This study sought to identify those experiences gained through formal education that were helpful to the planner. From a list of ex- peFiences, the respondents checked those they had experienced and ‘those they felt they should have experienced. As indicated in Table 33 15, the most common experiences cited were (1) visiting buildings, (2) evaluating buildings, (3) visiting construction sites during construction, (4) evaluating sites, and (5) making enrollment pro— jections. The specialists also checked those items they felt they should have experienced through their formal education. The most commonly checked were -— 1. Serving a part—time internship with a local school district in cooperation with a university. 2. Writing actual or hypothetical educational specifications. 3. Planning an actual or hypothetical bond issue. 4. Visit to a city planning section. 5. Making a land-use study. 6. Planning orientation activities for an actual or hypothetical building. Over one-half of the respondents had some experience in deter- mining the educational and/or building needs of a community. The areas least experienced were those connected with insurance Services, bond issues, dedication or orientation activities, and internships. These areas were cited frequently by the planners as experiences they should have had. Table 16 on pages 22 and 23 shows the frequency of the responses t0 the items the planners felt they should have experienced. '- 181‘.“ v V???“ 34 H.mN :o o N mH NH m HN oaooH econ HooHooeuoo uzn Ho Hmzuom am wchcmHm m.oo no N N mH on m on : .HHoooo HoeoHooosoo HooHu locuomzn Ho Hmsuom wcHuHHZ H.om wNH m a on mm m mm m NHH::EEoo o No momma wCHoHHDQ wchwsooqu H.mm HNH m m mm mm 0 mm : zuwczasoo m mo momma Hm ncoHumusoo ecu wcHGHEHoamQ m.o: ooH N m mN mm o oN m NuHosEEoo o No zozum HmHocmcHu m wcmez m.N: No o m oH MN 3 mm o Nosoo om: ocoH o wconz o.oo NmH o m mm H: N mm m :oHuoon Iona ucoaafloucm :m wcfixmz m.N: No m m :N mN m oN m oaoHoooo wcHoHHso co muoHuom comon wCH>uomno m.mm oN m N oH HN N oN o oHsoonom :oHuosoumcoo m wcficcmHm m.mN mo N H 3H NH m mN : mooH>ooo ooeoooooH mo Nozem m.:: HoH o N oH NN m mm o moooo wcHoHHso mo Nosem o.oN HoH o m mm m: w o: o mwcHoHHoo wcHHosHo>m :.:o NoH 0H : Nm H: N m: w ooHHo wcHuosHo>m 3.:o NeH w H mm Nm N N: oH :oHHoaoHocoo wcHeso muwm COHHUDHumCOU Cu. HHmH> 0.0m :HH m oN oN o Nm m .oNo m.HoooHnoeo oo oHoH> H.mm om : m NH NH N Nm m coHoooo wcH:CmHa zuwo ou uwmw> m.Nm :N m : HN :N m Nm m :oHuooo wcH: IsmHa Hoonom oumum ou uHmH> o.wN mNH HH m m: o: m Nm o owcHoHHso ou uHoH> .UDDM MO .HQGQ mmmeHOU mmmeHOU mHOOSUm 6.2mm mmUCOH “maxm unmoumm mHmuoH Hmzuo momumo .m.D oumum UHHnsm oum>wom oansm Housuumuflzou< ZOHHHcs m nuH3 coHumHomooo CH :oHu loosed mo Hamsuummoo mumum m :HHB awnmcomu law mEHunpuma m wcH>Hmm m NuHo loo>mcs m nuHB cowpmuoao :00 CH uowoumflo Hoonom HmooH zuwz mwcmcuou ICH mawuluuma m mafi>uom wcHoHHso Hoo uHuonuoamn no Hmspom am How moHuH>Huom cowumucowoo wCHCCmHm moHuH>Huom mCOHumH loo UHHQSQ Ho >coaooou :oHumowooc Hmowuonuoa I»: we Hospom cm wcHGCmHm 0H N mH H ucoouom mHmHOH Honuo .osom mo oonmo .w.D .uaoa momeHoo mumum oHHnnm mmonHoo oum>wom mHoosom aowm moosoflooaxm owfinsm Hmosuoouwnou< NoozeHecoov SH mmeH 7.....-.Homno w.om mo 3 mm m mm m mHsnmnom coHuosoumcoo m wchcmHm m.om Ho m mm oH H NH mmde>Hom ooCmozmcH mo Hosum m.mm :m d :N o H 0H H moooo wcHwHHsn mo Hosum m.mH mm H mH m a H mwcwnszn wcHumsHm>m o.mm N: m mH m H 0H H mouHm wcHumsHm>m 3.3H on H mH N N o :oHooseHmcoo wcHoso ouHm :oHuospumcoo 0p “HmH> N.oN m: H oH HH H mH H .oHo o.ooooHeooo oH “HmH> m.om :o m HN mH m mH H .8303. wcHCCmHm zuHo ou uHmH> o.oN mm N NN :H oH H coHoooo mchcoHo Hoonom oumum OH uHmH> N.o :H H N H d H mwcHoHHsn on uHmH> .osom mo .uaoa moonHou moonHoo mHoonom EHHm moocoHooaxm ucoopom mHmHOH Honuo moHuHo .m.D oumum UHHnsm oum>HHm UHHnsm Hmosuooanou< ZOHHuHmHo>Hcs m cqu :oHumHomooo :H COHumosvo mo ucosuommoo mumHm m nuHB QHcmCHou ucH oaHuuuumm m wcH>Hom N NN N NoHo IHo>ch m :uH3 coHumHmao :00 CH HoHupmHo Hoocom HmooH anz awnmcoou ncH mawuleomm m wcH>Hom onoHHoo HooHH nonpoazn Ho Hmsuom am you moHuH>Huom :oHHmucoHHo wchcmHm moHuH>Huom mcoHumH non oHHnsa Ho >cofimuoo coHumoHooo HmUHuosuoa nun Ho Hmsuom am wchcmHm unmooom mHmHOH Hmnuo .osom Ho ooHHHo .m.= .uaoa mommHHoo oooem oHHosm moonHou mHoonum EHHm moucoHHmaxm oum>Hom UHHnsm HmozuomanoH< I ‘I AcoSCHucoov mH MHmoo wcHHoocsoo o.oN omH N o: Om w: m mzo>w5m Hoonom wcHuosocoo H.:N moH N N: mm m: m nonopw CONHHHO zmH nqu mcHHwoucoo m.Hm NoN HH Ho No mm m moouopuchHaem Cam mvumon :HHB wcHHwomcoo o.mo de m m: o: a: m muuoaoo ho>usm wcHuHuz w.Hm :HH 0 0m am a: m moHOHuum Hmconmomoum mcHuHuz w.Hm dHH m wH d: m: : mcoHumo IHmHoomm HmcoHumosoo wcHHsz 3.0m No a N N Hm N nonnoHo wcHeoooe oumum no HOHHomHQ zuHmHO>HCD omeCoooom mHmHOH Hocuo Hmoonom HmOOH Ho oonHoo Hmusowawnoa< mxmmy Ii I I] All HI I H \II‘ llll ZOHHDHHHMZH OszHm mo mmwh wm mHzmazommmm wm szmommmm mmmcH mm mam :> 2"“. .A .I.A. .E.A. Your state education association Your state architects association A.S.B.O. A.S.C.D. Phi Delta Kappa Other (Please Specify) Oxooowmmkw O EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 2. Ed.D. 3. Six-Year Diploma (or equivalent certificate) 4. MHA. 5. M.E. 6. A.B.or B.S. 7 8 . B.E. . Non-degree 9. Other (Please specify) University granting highest degree: Undergraduate major: Minor: Masters major: Minor: Cognate area:* * Cognate area refers to a block of courses concentrating in a discipline other than your major field. Type of institution granthmgdegrees (e.g. private, technical, state,etc.): a. Undergraduate: b. Masters degree: c. Doctorate: 102 2/7 Names of courses taken in school plant planning: Semester hours: Semester hours: Semester hours: 2/8 Please check those items which you experienced in your formal educa- Also, indicate by checking in the second column those items you feel you should have experienced in your formal education in addition to those you did experience: tion. I HAD Ln-l-‘wwl—i O 0 1—11—1 t-‘Okomwm O C H N o l3 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. I SHOULD ALSO HAVE HAD THESE l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. EXPERIENCE Visit to buildings. Visit to state school planning section. Visit to city planning section. Visit to architect's office. Visit to construction Site during construction. Evaluating sites. Evaluating buildings Study of building codes. Study of insurance services. Planning a construction schedule. Observing board actions on building problems. Making an enrollment projection. Making a land use study. Making a financial study of a community. Determining the educational needs of a community. Determining building needs of a com— mnnity. Writing actual or hypothetical educa- tional specifications. Planning an actual or hypothetical bond issue. Planning an actual or hypothetical dedication ceremony or public relations activities. Planning orientation activities for an actual or hypothetical building. Serving a part-time internship with local school district in cooperation with a university. Serving a part-time internship with a state department of education in cooperation with a university. Other please specify: 2/9 Please check those areas in which you have had formal training in curriculum: Elementary curriculum Secondary curriculum Curriculum construction Leadership in curriculum Curriculum improvement Other (Please specify) 103 2/10 What other related courses do you feel have been Of help to you: EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUND 3/1 Please check those positions which you have held. If you have held a position not listed, fill in the blanks provided. Indicate by number the order Number of Types of Positions in which these years in were held. a position. Administrator (College) Architect Designer Draftsman Engineer Principal (Elementary) Principal (Secondary) State Department of Education Superintendent Superintendent (Assistant for Business) Superintendent (Assistant for Cur— riculum/ Instruction) 12. Superintendent (Assistant for Plant) 13. Supervisor of Instruction 14. Teacher (College) 15. Teacher (Secondary) 16. Teacher (Elementary) l7. U.S. Office of Education 18. Other: 19. Other: 3/2 What do you consider your "specialties" in the field of school plant planning? (e.g.lighting, relation of school program to plant, etc.) P'C>m>a)\lo~u1$'o>N3Ha O H p—J O 3/3 How were these specialties developed? (Check as many as may apply) 1. Through formal education 2. Experience on the job 3. Research in connection with training 4. Research in connection with a job 5. Through participation in activities of a professional organization 6. Other (Please specify) 3/4 WHZt type of position in school plant planning would you ultimately hope to hold? 4/1 4/2 4/3 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5 5/6 104 NATURE OF HIRING INSTITUTION Please check the type of institution in which you are presently employed: 1. Architectural firm 2. Public school district (How many students enrolled in the 3. College (Private) (How many students enrolled in the 4. College (State) (How many students enrolled in the 5. State Department of Education 6. U.S. Office of Education 7. Other (Please specify) district college college Population of city in which hiring institution is located: State or province in which institution is located: SCOPE OF THE POSITION Job title: Did the position exist before your being in the position? ___1. Yes ___2. No To whom are you directly responsible (position): What positions are directly responsible to you: Position Number of Personnel in each categgry Approximate number of hours spent per week in the field of school plant planning: 1. 0-5 6—10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26—30 31-35 36-40 41-45 . Over 45 O OOmVOU'l-FUN o If you are not a full-time planner, of what does the remainder of your work consist? ) ) ____) 105 5/7 Please check those tasks which are part of your job. Use the column which would apply to your position. If there are other tasks which are not listed, please use the spaces provided. Local Federal A ' 11 th rchltect CO ege Dist. or State 0 e "1 1. Teaching classes 2. Writing educational specifications 3. Writing professional articles 4. Writing survey reports 5. Conferring with boards and ad— ministrators 6. Conferring with lay citizen groups 7. Conducting school surveys 8. Counselling advisees 9. Directing research projects 0. Designing buildings ___—11. Site selection 12. Negotiating for sites 13. Projecting population growth 14. Consulting re: Maintenance . 15. Consulting re: Equipment & Furnitur- 16. Consulting re: Financing Buildings 17. Consulting re: Building Codes 18. Conferring with architects 19. Other (Please Specify) a. b. c. 5/8 Circle the corresponding numbers to the £39 tasks above which take up the greatest portion of your time: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 5/9 Please check those tasks you find most difficult in your position because of a lack of experience and/or a lack of training. Difficult Because Difficult Because Type of Task Lack of Experience Lack of Training 1. Conducting school district surveys Working with lay citizen groups Working with school boards Working with administrative staffs Working with faculties Working with architects Writing educational specifications Negotiating for sites Selecting sites Teaching classes in school plant planning 11. Advisee load 12. Directing research projects 13. Projecting pupil enrollments l4. Anticipating annexation problems re: buildings 15. Consulting re: Maintenance 16. Consulting re: Financing Buildings 17. Consulting re: Building Codes l8. Consulting re: Equipment & Furniture 19. Other (Please specify)a. b. c. oomVOU'I-PWN t—‘ 5/10 5/11 5/12 5/13 6/1 6/2 6/3 106 Please check those with whom you are usually involved in planning a new facility: 1. Administration Faculty Board of Education Architect Lay citizens Other (Please specify): a. b. c. Do you see any change in the pattern of involvement in the future? 1. Yes '_—_2. NO If—you see a change, please check those you feel will become more or less involved: More Less Area Chm-PC.) O N l. l. l. Administrators 2. —2. 2. Faculties -_—3. _——3. 3. Boards of Education __—4. -_—4. 4. Architects ___5. ‘__—5. 5. Lay citizens _——6. _—-6. 6. Other (Please specify) —__ _—T a. ___ ___ b. What other changes do you see in the pattern of involvement in school plant planning? PERSONAL SATISFACTION Economic satisfaction: Please check to indicate the extent of your satisfaction with your present position from.the point of view of the total economic aspect. This includes benefits other than salary (e.g. retirement, health insurance, etc.) 1. I am fully satisfied with the economic Status of the position. 2. I am only partially satisfied with the economic status of the position. 3. I am dissatisfied with the economic status of the position. If you answered that you were partially satisfied or dissatisfied, please indicate areas you feel need to be improved: 1. Salary base 2. Retirement benefits 3. Health insurance 4. Travel allowance 5. Other (Please specify) a. b. PTOfessional satisfaction: Please check to indicate how well pleased you are with your position in terms of professional satisfaction: 1. I am thoroughly satisfied. I've no desire to change positions at this time. 2. I'm somewhat satisfied, but would desire a change. 3. I‘m somewhat dissatisfied. I'd change if I could. 4. I'm thoroughly dissatisfied. 107 6/4 If you would consider a change of position, would the position you would seek be in: l. The field of school plant planning? 2. A different field: if so, what field? 3. A different type hiring institution? 4. Other (Please specify) 6/5 If you checked ”a different type hiring institution," to which of the following would you be most interested in going? 1. College 2. Local district 3. Architectural firm 4. State or Federal agency 5. Other (Please specify) 6/6 Please check the interval which includes the annual income earned in your present position. (Please include salary, consultant fees, etc.) Less than $6,000 $6,000-$7,999 $8,000—$9,999 $10,000-$ll,999 $12,000-$13,999 $14,000-$15,999 $16,000-$17,999 $18,000—$19,999 $20,000 or over \OCDVOU'l-PUNl—l O OPIONIONNAIRE CONCERNING DESIRABLE EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE Please answer the following questions in terms of optimum conditions -- what should be rather than what 35' 7/1 What courses of study (majors and minors) do you feel would be ideal for the person filling a position similar to yours: a. Undergraduate major: Minor: b. Masters major: Minor: c. Doctorate: Cognate: 7/2 Do you feel training in depth in a discipline other than your major (e.g., urban planning, sociology, psychology, etc.) is: 1. Highly desirable 2. Desirable but not necessary 3. Would make little difference in job performance 4. Not desirable 5. Other (Please specify) 7/3 If you feel such training in a discipline other than your major is desirable as a cognate area in the doctoral level,what discipline would be most helpful to a person filling a position similar to yours? 7/4 What specialized courses would you consider absolutely necessary for the school plant planner of the future? 108 7/5 What other suggestions would you have for the ideal preparation program? 7/6 7/7 What sequence of positions would you feel to be most desirable for the person filling a position similar to yours, and what would be the optimum time to spend in each? Time: Time: Time: Time: Time: What experiences would be particularly valuable to a planner that sneer- might be experiences outside his formal education or position? (e.g. ‘2 working with an architect, assisting in a school survey, etc.) hwy—q; ACHIS OI ONIGNOdSHH SUENNVId A8 CIEH 8338330 ISBHOIH ONIINVHO SHIIISHEAINH GNV SHOEIIOO 8 XICNEddV 1"...- a-"r— ' APPENDIX B COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES GRANTING HIGHEST DEGREES HELD BY PLANNERS RESPONDING TO STUDY College or University Degrees Held Doctors Six-Year Master's Bachelor's Totals Arizona State 1 Ball State 1 U. of California 1 l U. of Calif., L.A. U. of So. California 1 1 l 1 Catholic University 1 U. of Chicago 2 U. of Cincinnati 1 Claremont 1 Colorado State 4 l U. of Colorado 1 Columbia, Teachers College 20 2 2 2 Cornell 2 Delhousie 1 Drexel Institute Duke University 1 Florida State U. 2 U. of Florida 1 Georgia Inst. of Tech. Georgia Tech. U. of Georgia 3 Harvard U. l 1 1 Johns Hopkins U. 2 U. of Hawaii 2 U. Of Illinois 1 l 1 Indiana State 1 Indiana U. 4 State Coll. of Iowa 1 State U. of Iowa 2 U. of Kansas 1 Kent State U. l U. of Kentucky U. of Maryland 1 U. of Miami, Fla. Michigan State U. 4 U. of Michigan 4 Middle Tennessee St. . of Minnesota 1 l . of 80. Mississippi 1 of Missouri 4 of Nebraska 8 . of New Brunswick 1 . of New Mexico 1 ...: l—‘NMH MP—‘NNH r—I N b—‘O—‘mChI—‘spt—‘GO‘HD—‘D—‘HO—‘ND—‘prNNwwHNDWF‘t—‘HNDHKflD—‘fi—‘Nl—‘C‘t—‘Nr—‘l—J CICSCEZCIC 110 111 APPENDIX B (Continued) W College or University Degrees Held Doctor's Six-Year Master's Bachelor's Toufls New York U. 2 1 State U. of New York U. of Nevada 1 No. Carolina State 1 U. of No. Carolina Northwestern U. Ohio State U. Oklahoma U. Oklahoma State 1 Central State of Oklahoma 1 Oregon State 1 U. of Oregon 1 l 2 Geo. Peabody College 3 l 1 Pennsylvania State 1 U. of Omaha 1 U. of Pittsburgh 1 1 Plymouth State Coll. Rutgers 1 Seattle U. U. of 80. Carolina 80. Dakota State Stanford U. 3 1 Syracuse U. 1 Temple U. 1 U. of Tennessee 5 U. of Texas 1 Texas A. & M. U. of Toronto Vanderbilt Virginia Polytech. Washington State Washington U. (Mo.) Wayne State U. l 1 Western Maryland 1 Western Reserve 1 U. of Wisconsin 2 3 U. of wyoming 1 U. of washington l Yale l 1 ._l l—Iml—Iw p—l O—‘l—‘P—‘H l—Il—at—Iv—Ir-Ir—I l—‘0—‘ 1—11—11—11—‘N p—l NHHLfiND—‘NHHHHWHwVHl—‘mO—‘HHWHNHr-JU'I-pt—‘D—‘r-‘NONWD—‘r—‘i—‘w APPENDIX C PUBLIC SCHOOL PLANT SPECIALISTS' JOB TITLES APPENDIX C PUBLIC SCHOOL PLANT SPECIALISTS' Titles JOB TITLES Frequency Administrative Assistant Administrative Intern Administrative Supervisor Architect to the Board Ass't. Director of Buildings and Grounds Ass't. Superintendent Ass't. Sup‘t. - Administrative Services Ass‘t. Sup't. - Buildings and Grounds Ass‘t. Sup't. - Business Ass't. Sup't. - Physical Plant Ass't. Sup't. - Plant Management Ass't. Sup't. — Supportive Services Associate Superintendent Business Manager Chief, Bureau of Housing Commissioner of School Housing Coordinator of Buildings and Grounds Coordinator of Building Planning Coordinator of Building Programs Deputy Superintendent Deputy Sup't - Business Director of Buildings and Grounds Director of Building ProgramlStudies Director of Curriculum Dir. of Curriculum and School Housing Planning Director of Non-instructional Services Director of Plant Facilities Director of School Building Planning Director of School Construction and Maintenance Director of School Housing Research Principal, Elementary Engineer in Charge of Const., Maint., and Oper. School Planning Consultant Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds Superintendent of Plant Superintendent of Schools Supervisor Supervisor of Planning and Building Supervisor of Engineering Supervisor of School Housing Research 113 ‘1—aNl—lwwHHHHHHNwQHHHHNle—IHHHHr—JHHHNwNHwI—aml—‘HN YL mllllllllllllllll11111111111 3 12 9 3 0 3 0 6 2 0 1111111155 664