M ‘\ H l l W! “W 1 ! I L 51% \l‘flllHlW‘HlMUMWU» A CASE STEJDY 0F RESPONSES TO AN URBAN EDUCAHGN FACILITSES PLANNING CHARRETTE EN DES MOINES, EOWA “Ehesis fer the Eegree cf Ph. {3. MBCHEGAN HATE ENE‘JERSE‘EY CALVSN :3 WHEELER 1973 LIBRARY Michigan State _.,,. Umvcrsrty ‘ ..~. :qvi’r’vw Ill/Illlllllll/I lIll/l/llI/ll/I/l/Will/Ill!ll/II/l/II/N/ll 3 1293 10475 9125 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A CASE STUDY OF RESPONSES TO AN URBAN EDUCATION FACILITIES PLANNING CHARRETI‘E IN DES MOINES, IOWA presented by CALVIN C. WHEELER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Secondary Education Major professor 0-7 639 BINDING UV HOME & SflNS’ 800K BINDERY INC. ngRARY BlNDERES ABSTRACT A CASE STUDY OF RESPONSES TO AN URBAN EDUCATION FACILITIES PLANNING CHARRETTE IN DES MOINES, IOWA by. Calvin C. Wheeler The purpose of this study is; (l) to attempt to evaluate Charrette '71 at the end of its duration (April, 1971) and (2) to attempt to measure the impact of Charrette '71 on the community eighteen months later (October, 1972). The charrette process is a method for involving the school community in facilities planning. The broad goal of the charrette method is to insure the full consideration of human-community needs in planning. Two questionnaires were used to obtain the data. The population of the study was the participants of Charrette '71. Data from.Questionnaire A were gathered by administering the questionnaire on the last day of Charrette '71 (April 28, 1971). Data from Questionnaire B were obtained through the use of the focused interview technique. Data were organized, examined and presented. The case study approach was used and evidence that was presented is applicable to the local setting that was studied and should not be generalized universally. The data used to evaluate Charrette '71 at the end of the Charrette was obtained from an instrument selected and administered by the Charrette '71 staff. Calvin C. Wheeler At the conclusion of the charrette, the data collected revealed the following attitudes and beliefs on the part of charrette participants: 1. Charrette '71 was successful in allowing everyone to have a say in.what want on. Participation in the charrette promoted interest and awareness in community and educational problems. The charrette was perceived to be more favorable than other meetings. Individuals perceptions of their accomplishments through charrette participation was very positive. The community was satisfactorily represented in the charrette. At the beginning of the charrette a high degree of suspicion was revealed on the part of the charrette participants. However, much of this suspicion and distrust had diminished enormously by the last day. Some continued skepticism is shown by the fact that eighty-four percent of the participants felt that "the community will have to be a watchdog to be sure that the charrette.work doesn't go down the drain." The charrette changed feelings about other people and their beliefs. Eighteen months later, additional data collected revealed that these same participants had the following general opinions, attitudes, and beliefs about the charrette ; 10. 11. Calvin C. Wheeler The participants are satisfied with the proposed educational program for the new schools. Charrette recommendations are progressing fairly close to schedule. The charrette narrowed the communication gap between the community and the board of education. Many of the respondents feel that effective communication channels are still present. Most respondents indicated that the most important aspect of the charrette was that people from all walks of life talked and listened to each other. Most of the respondents were satisfied with what was accomplished in the charrette. Most of the respondents indicated that the charrette would have been less successful if it had been incorporated into a permanent structure. Practically every respondent felt the need for a better system of follow-up to insure continuity and stability to the program, A stronger commitment from the board of education is needed to insure continued success of the charrette proposed plans The community is still somewhat involved in the decision» making process-—primarily through the efforts of the Citizen Advisory Council. Most of the agency representatives in the charrette were not decision makers. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. Calvin C. Wheeler Some participants felt that the board of education was doing them a favor by "letting them be involved in the decision making--or even by listening to them." Most of the Charrette '71 participants are not presently actively involved in school issues. The communication gap is widening again. There was noticeable inconsistency between objective responses and subjective responses. There was a noticeable negative change in the way participants felt about Charrette '71 from.April, 1971 to October, 1972. There appeared to be an absence of an ongoing program, or any plans for one, that would promote and insure community involvement. A CASE STUDY OF RESPONSES TO AN URBAN EDUCATION FACILITIES PLANNING CHARRETTE IN DES MOINES, IOWA by \_, ,-'\\‘ ‘. Calvin C? Wheeler A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1973 I ’5‘ T :‘LP‘ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tiff-"i, Worthy accomplishments are seldom, if ever, obtained without the help, guidance, and continual reassurance from others. I was very fortunate to have an excellent guidance committee to teach and guide my efforts. I was also aided tremendously by various other scholars, educators, and friends. Samuel S. Corl, III, the Chairman of my guidance committee provided me the services of a teacher, a critic, a counselor and any other related service that I needed. His assistance was beyond measurement. I would also like to express my appreciation to Joseph McMillan, Wilbur Brookover, and Stanley P. Wronski who proved to be excellent critics and advisors. Their input was extremely helpful and important in forcing me to examine and refocus my aspects of my work. My tenure with the Louisville Urban Education Center provided a wealth of experience and opportunity that I might never have received otherwise. Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank the Des Moines Public Schools and the school communities for their cooPeration and guidance; without their support this study would not have been possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIGNIFICANCE OF PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . THE CHARRETTE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . Charrette Orientation--Tours and Briefings Creativity Generator--Ideas . . . . . . . . Solutions and Analysis--Alternatives . . . Open Public Forumr-Client In-put . . . . . Proposal Development--Feasibility . . . . . Final Production--Consensus .‘. . . . . . . Final Presentation--Commitment . . . . . . OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STUDY POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFINITION OF TERMS USED . . . . . . . . . . . LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF CHAPTER I . . . . . . . . . . . . . II REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page vi ix 10 10 10 ll 13 13 14 16 18 19 20 ATTITUDE CHANGE THROUGH THE GROUP DECISION PROCESS 20 iii Chapter III COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . COMMUNITY SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . FACILITY PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . BRIEF HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL PIMNING O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 THE HISTORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CHARRETTES SUMMARYOFGHAPTER‘II . . . . . . . .. . . DESCRIPTION OF CHARRETTE '71 . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CHARRETTE BECOMES A REALITY . . . . . . THE STEERING COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . Organization and Structure . . . . . . . Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING THE CHARRETTE . . . . . . . . . . THE CHARRETTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evening Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . Juries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Charrette Finale . . . . . . . . . . CHARRETTE OUTCOMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Educational Philosophy . . . Educational Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Proposals . . . . . . . . . . Community Development Proposals . . . . . Community-School Program Proposals . . . Community Advisory Council . . . . . SIWARY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER III . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 22 25 26 28 32 38 4O 4O 43 45 45 47 48 52 58 59 59 6O 61 63 64 65 66 67 67 69 Chapter IV DESCRIPTION AND PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EVALUATION AT THE END OF CHARRETTE '71 . . . . . The Role of the Individual in Charrette '71 . General Reactions to Charrette '71 . . . . . Relationship Between School and Community . . CHARRETTE '71 EIGHTEEN MONTHS LATER-'1T'S IMPACT ON TliE COWITY o o o c o s o o o o o o a General Reactions Toward Charrette '71 . . . COMPARISON BETWEEN THE END OF CHARRETTE '71 (APRIL, 1971) AND CHARRETTE '71 EIGHTEEN MONTHS LATER (OCTOBER, 1972): WHAT CHANGED . General Reactions to Charrette '71 . . . . . Relationship Between School and Community . . SUMMARY OF CHAPTER IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . APPENDICES . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY REACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 70 7O 71 72 72 78 82 82 97 97 97 99 100 100 101 102 106 109 112 118 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 Sample Schedule for Educational Facilities Charrette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1 How did taking part in the charrette affect your interest in community and educational problems? Did you feel more interested, less interested, or about the same as before? . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.2 How satisfied are you with what you accomplished in the charrette? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.3 The idea of the charrette is that everyone can have a voice in what is going on. How well do you think the charrette worked? . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.4 How satisfied are you with the educational programs proposed for the school that will be in the bUilding? O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O O O O O 74 4.5 How satisfied are you with the way the comunity was represented at the charrette . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.6 I feel that our group in the charrette paid more attention to people like me . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.7 I don't think our group had enough information from the experts and consultants . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.8 Most of us have attended meetings where we sat and listened while either a Speaker or a panel of experts did most of the talking . . . . . . . . . 76 4.9 Do you feel that the charrette changed your feelings about other people and their beliefs . . . . . . 77 4.10 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that the establishment didn't really care what folks like me thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.11 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that we were just there to rubber stamp something that had already been planned . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 vi vii Table Page 4.12 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that the community people would have a chance to make some real improvements in education for the children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.13 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that it would end up with the establishment running things 0 I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 80 4.14 After the charrette was over, I felt that the establishment didn't really care what folks like me thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.15 After the charrette was over, I felt that we had been there just to rubber stamp something that had already been planned . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.16 After the charrette was over, I felt that the community people had had a chance to make some real improvements in education for the children 81 4.17 After the charrette was over, I felt that the establishment had ended up running things . . . 81 4.18 I feel now that the community will have to be a "watchdog" to be sure the charrette's work doesn't go down the drain . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.19 Do you feel that the progress of the charrette recommendations is going according to the schedule agreed upon by the charrette participants 84 4.20 Do you feel that the function and the results of the charrette had served its purpose as soon as the recommendations were approved by the participants 84 4.21 In your Opinion, what are the strong points in the charrette that led to continued involvement in educational planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.22 Do you feel that another charrette would help solve some of the problems that were supposed to have been solved in the previous charrette? If yes, how? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 4.23 In your opinion, was the charrette a worthwhile experience? Why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4.24 List some of the ways that you feel the charrette could have been of more use to the overall concept of community involvement . . . . . . . . 89 Table 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 viii Page Do you feel that the charrette would have been more or less, effective if it had been incorporated into a permanent structure with periodic meetings? Why? . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Are you satisfied with what was accomplished in the charrette? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 In your opinion, is the community still involved in the decision making process of educational problems in the replacement school areas . . . . 92 In you opinion, did the charrette narrow the communication gap between the community and the board of education? How? . . . . . . . . . . . 92 If you answer to the above is yes, do you feel that effective communication channels are still present? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Census Tracts in the Des Moines, Iowa SMSA . . . . . 42 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For generations educators have been attempting to improve the quality of their planning. Progress has been especially visible in the field of facilities planning, the area of this investigation. For decades the emphasis was on improving the technical or profes- sional competence in facility planning. Once technical competence was more than adequate, the problem of assuring the utility of the school facility in humane terms emerged. This study represents an effort to determine the suitability of one newly developed method for solving the problem of humanizing facilities, the charrette process.1 ‘The charrette process is a method for involving the school community in facilities planning. The broad goal of the charrette method is to insure the full consideration of human-community needs in planning. A charrette resembles a "marathon" group process in that it forces people to sit down together to share their concerns, ideas and goals. But it is more than that. It brings together various segments of the community--parents, students, teachers, professional developers, administrators, community organization representatives, 1The charrette process can be used for many planning purposes, but in this study the focus is on school facility planning. 1 I‘d school personnel, school board members, architects and local government officials-~in a concentrated, goal-directed session. The goal is the creation of new, and presumably more useful, educational facilities. The end results, according to most reports, incude a fusion of community interests and concerns into an organized effort to improve schools. "The charrette process differs considerably from conven- tional methods of planning. First, it provides a structure which allows residents and agencies to collectively identify problems, needs, and interests that prevail in a community; seeks solutions to community problems; confronts elected officieals in open public forum about community needs; and assists in the implementation of programs. Second, many feel the charrette is more effective than traditional methods since propOsals are more likely to be accepted and supported by residents due to their participation and involve- "2 ment in the planning process. A detailed description of the charrette process is found later in this chapter. The Problem Hans B. Speigel is reported saying: that out of citizen participation may come a climate in which it (citizen participations) is not only a legitimate and highly sought goal but an objective that may be realized through the extension of knowledge and the develogment of skill and competence in using that knowledge. 2Charles Link and Donald Brubaker, "Charrette '71", (Des Moines: Accurate Inc., 1971), p. 3. 3Alan Mossman,"Charrette--Volume One: Words, (unpublished Bachelor of Architecture dissertation, University of Liverpool, School of Architecture, 1972), p. 64. The major problem of this study is to determine if, in fact, one such charrette has accomplished this conceptual goal. Sub-problems of this study are: (l) to find out if the Charrette participants feel that the Charrette was worthwhile, (2) to assess the extent to which the charrette appeared to alleviate some of the disparities involving distrust that existed among participants, and (3) to assess the extent to which the Charrette participants perceive the success or the failure of the charrette eighteen months after it was conducted. Significance of Problem The charrette approach seems to offer a way to assure that school facilities meet the human and community needs. Charrettes seem to offer a way to improve human conditions within the schools. The need to improve conditions in the urban setting of this study goes far beyond schools as buildings, and even beyond education as an enterprise. There have been approximately forty charrettes reported as "successful" since Mylecraine instituted the first one in the spring of 1968 at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. Each of these charrettes was documented and an extensive report resulted from most of them. However, a review of these reports and other materials written on charrettes fails to reveal an in-depth explanation or study of the problems that inhabit our urban educational and social settings. These problems constitute many of the reasons why a number of urban communities have turned to the charrette process in their search for solutions to some of these urban problems. Even though there are countless numbers of studies dealing with the urban social and educational dilemma in our nation, very few have dealt with the charrette process, and how these prOblems brought about the usage of charrettes as a possible solution. Consequently, this study attempts to bring into perspective a few of our urban educational and social problems, and dramatize their place in the charrette process. The deterioration of America's inner cities seems to be contagious. Blighted and desolated neighborhoods are more prevalent today than ever. . . . We believe that the problems of our urban centers have become so complex, the importance of solving the problems so urgent, that we can no longer rely upon piecemeal, independent action, or inaction, by segments of our community, public or private, to achieve the level of coordinatez developmental planning which is required now. Our inner-city social problems have made their presence felt all the way to the White House and to the desk of the President of the United States. In his report to The Congress, February 19, 1969, Mr. Nixon stated: . . . The blight of poverty requires priority attention. It engages our hearts and challenges our intelligence. It cannot and will not be treated lightly or indifferently, or without the most searching examination of how best to marshal the resources available to the Federal Government for combating it. . . . O.E.O.'s greatest value is as an initiating agency-- devising new programs to help the poor, and serving as an 'incubator' for those programs during their initial experimental phase. . 4William W. Chase, "The Charrette: A Process In Participative Decision Making or a Means of Co—opting Community Leadership". (U. S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1970), p. l. . One of the primary goals of this Administration is to expand our knowledge of how best to make real progress against those social ills that have so stubbornly defied solution. We do not pretend to have all the answers. We are determined to find as many as we can.5 Passow, too, in viewing the urban dilemma, states: The American city faces a four-fold dilemma: fewer tax dollars available as middle-income taxpayers move out and property values, business, and commerce decline; more tax dollars needed for essential public services and facilities and for meeting the basic needs of low income groups, increasing costs of goods and services, resulting in dwindling tax dollars buying less; and increasing dissatisfactions with services provided as needs6 expectations, and living standards increase. In the current crisis, education is part of the problem as well as part of the solution. Aside from the role of schools in developing 'brain- power' and all that is entailed in those endeavors, education represents the means for creating the commitments and attitudes needed to grapple with the problems as well as the promise of our urban cities. Surveys of large city school systems continue to document the failures of the inner-city schools, confirming that they are 'in deep and probably worsening trouble. . . . After presenting 'evidence which indicates the enormity of the failure of the urban public schools to educate the poor in the past and the present', those concerned with edu- cating the urban poor 'cannot realistically rely on the public schools to do more than a disappointingly small fraction of the job at hand'. 5United States Office of Economic Opportunity,"The Theory and the Fact", (Washington, D. 0., July, 1967), p. 5. 6Harry A. Passow, ed., Urban Education in the 1970's, (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1971), p. 399. 71bid., p. 2. 8Ibid., p. 3. Jonathan Kozol warned: "An ominous cloud hangs over the major cities of America; it is in the danger that our ghetto schools, having long ceased to educate children entrusted to their care, will shortly cease to function altogether."9 The Kerner Commission report also cited the failure of ghetto schools to constitute a viable dynamic reform force in American ghetto areas. The report also points to social and economic discrimination and deprivation as perpetuated by schools as provoking continued disruption and conflict in the cities. Almost without exception, the slums are expanding ghettos. Once fashionable streets of nineteenth century mansions and townhouses are today's tenements. Whole neighborhoods have been taken over by blacks, poor whites, and other minority groups, as middle-income whites continue to settle in the suburbs. We find today that these neighborhoods are expanding to become entire sectors of social and racial circumscription in the inner-city. From 1950 to 1960, nine out of the eleven largest cities in the United States lost approximately ten percent of their population to suburban areas, but the non-white population increased about 22.6 percent. By 1960, 10.3 million non-whites, or more than half the total non-white population of this country were living in 9Sherwood D. Kohnq "Experiment in Planning an Urban High School: The Baltimore Charrette%(Library of Congress, Catalog No. 71-106009, November, 1969), p. 28. central cities, representing an in-migration gain of 63 percent in the decade.10 The population statistics in themselves present a formidable picture of urban America today and some of the problems it faces. It has already been recognized that black in-migration has taken over traditional neighborhoods, and these neighborhoods in their cluster patterns have begun to add up to city sectors of considerable size. As we look at the physical form of urban cities we find that these neighborhoods are, by tradition, inward-looking and insular, each with its own shOpping center, school, library, park and recreation center, and churches. In the fight for the alleviation of poverty and the improvement of the living environment in ghetto like Situations, education is our greatest tool. However, our national figures Show that half of all blacks over twenty- five years of age have less than an eighth-grade education.11 The Health, Education and Welfare Task Force on Urban Education, reported that unemployment of blacks is consistently more than twice that of whites.12 The median income in 1967 of black male workers was $4,380 and for white male workers it was $6,465. Thirty percent of the black population was found to be below poverty levels when compared to ten percent of the white population. The schools--expecia11y the secondary schools--are always the oldest and the poorest equipped. In most cases, they are the same schools 10Roland F. Campbell, Lucy Ann.Marx, Raphael O. Nystrand, Education and Urban Renaissance, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970), p. 74. 111bid., p. 75. that were left behind as the middle-class whites fled to suburbia, to new and wonderfully equipped facilities. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that major cities and urban inner-city areas have difficulty encouraging competent and dedicated educators to work in such declining urban environments, under such destructive pressures. This study is based upon several broad assumptions. One is that involving community members in as many aspects of any process, builds and insures faith and confidence that the process will work. This idea can rarely be more prevalent anywhere than in urban educational settings. Many educators have concluded that cooperative planning is a very effective method of bringing the community together and of bridging the school-community gap. An article in the American 13 reads "If the community is going to use School and University, the schools, or even if just its children are, the community ought to be involved in planning it. This idea has given rise to a new method for planning schools--the Charrette." The Charrette Process The following is a detailed presentation of the steps involved in a "typical" charrette. Charrette orientation--tours and briefings. Before the official start of the Charrette there should be a one day orientation session for all out-of-town professionals and students to tour and 13"Building Ideas that Save Money”, American School and University, 43, (February, 1971), pp. 13-32. become acquainted with the community. The session should also include complete explanation of the charrette process and a definition of roles to all participants. A briefing should also be given on the available data and technical resources. Creativity generator--ideas. The charrette starts by splitting the entire group into representative groups which brain- storm on school program, physical facilities, school-community program, and social and economic planning for community. A facilitator core of a discussion leader, an appropriate profes- sional, an architectural student and a secretary stays with each subject. All other participants rotate to each group to develop the inter-relations and comprehensiveness. The problems, their causes and relations are explored and major goals of the community are developed. Open public forums each evening inform all participants of each group's progress and get in-put from.the community at large. Solutions and analysis-~alternatives. Next comes a continuation of the creativity generator (i.e., the three subject groups break down into sub-groups and develop the separate parts of their subject area). Sub-grouping should not take place until the gut issues of the community have surfaced and community goals are identified. The sub-groups must coordinate their various proposals within the subject area before reporting to the charrette body at the nightly open public forums. This phase determines the various possible solutions in detail and analyzes them for meeting community goals. 10 Opengpublic forumr-client in-put. Each evening throughout the Charrette there is an open community formm. Each group reports to all participants and the community residents who could not be there during the day. The forum informs everyone of each group's activities and gives those not in the group an opportunity to inject their ideas and take part in the decision-making. All are encouraged to re-act to the ideas presented and to raise new ideas. The forum also tests the ability of ideas to command community support. Midway in the.Charrette, public and private officials are requested to be at an evening forum to re-act to the feasibility of the proposals being generated. Proposal development--feasibility. After completion of the solution and analysis phase, all of the proposals dealing with the various social, economic, physical planning, and program components must be brought together into a comprehensive overall program and physical plan. A central working group is formulated to coordinate the development plan which takes the form of a coordinated and inter-related set of graphic and written reports. This phase develops proposals, recommendations, and actions and establishes responsibilities and accountability. Forum sessions continue each evening throughout this phase. Final production--consensus. During the last days of the charrette the participants, professionals, and graduate students enter into an intensive final production thrust to carry the charrette proposals as far as possible. During this stage three- dimensional models, graphics, and reports are produced and ll finalized, along with an implementation strategy and a chart of the action steps necessary to assure that the charrette ideas move from a plan to a reality. Final p;esentation-—commitment. The last session is an open forum to present the final pr0posals to the community, and the agencies for implementation. At this session the highest ranking officials and community leaders will be asked to commit to implementation of the plans. The organizational framework and strategies for continued involvement of the community in the implementation of charrette recommendations should also be spelled out, so that everyone can see not only what was produced and agreed upon, but also how it is to be implemented. Table 1.1 Sample Schedule for Educational Facilities Charrette First Week Sunday PM-—_. Monday PM t===-- Orientation Monday PM___ Concepts, Confrontations, Tuesday Problem analysis and Wednesday AMe________._—————-—"‘;:=.— initial creativity Wednesday PM :::==-—___.Trial Jury (Power Structure) Thursday——_ Concept modification, Problem Friday analysis, Creativity and Saturday (pre-dawn),_,._.——,...'——::=-'graphic communication Saturday PM ":==='-'—'-—'Comprehensive Jury (Community) Sunday__ <—:===-:—e Recreation 12 Table 1.1 (continued) Second Week Monday Concept Modification, Tuesday Creativity, Feasibility Wednesday Analysis and graphic Thursday AM communication Thursday PM , Drawings, graphics, Friday Models and written Saturday (pre-dawn) reports Open house presentation, community-at-large, Saturday_ffi :=:===---Politicians, Public and private officials and mass media William Chase, one of the originators of the charrette process, states "Education should serve as a focal point for activities to improve the life change of citizens of all ages."14 In great urban settings Mr. Chase's philosophy is even more relevant and more important than in sub-urban or rural settings. Charrettes are believed to serve as a vehicle to insure that educational facilities designed through the charrette process will be better equipped to provide positive change in the local educational system. The charrette-designed facility should also meet the needs of the entire community better than educational facilities that are traditionally designed. 14William.W. Chase, "Design for Regenerating a City", reprint from.American Education. (United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, March, 1971). 13 Perhaps the most important feature of the charrette process is its claimed ability to change how people of different races, religions, social and economical status, beliefs, etc., feel about each other and about the educational system.as well. Many educators, planners, and sociologist feel that highly intensified and positive interaction, such as that employed in a charrette, can do much to disspell many myths, ignorances, misconceptions, prejudices and other negative feelings that many peOple have about unknown subjects. Objectives of This Study The major objectives of this study are: 1. To give a clear and concise description of Charrette '71. 2. To evaluate Charrette '71 at the end of its duration (April, 1971). This was accomplished using data collected by Charrette '71 staff from.an instrument constructed by the United States Office of Education. 3. In addition, data from charrette participants, obtained 18 months later, were used to measure the impact of Charrette '71 on the community 1% years later, and to determine if any changes have occurred since the end of Charrette '71. Methodology The case study approach was employed in this study to permit the investigator to use a variety of methods and resources to obtain the data needed. Data were obtained by the following methods: 1. Data were collected by the Charrette '71 staff from an instrument constructed by the United States Office of Education. 14 Reflections derived from formal and informal conversations with participants of the charrette. Descriptive data on Charrette '71 and the city of Des Moines were obtained from records and reports located in the Des Moines School District, the Mid-Iowa Regional Planning Commission and the city of Des Moines. The news media were used to obtain data and information about recent developments. Public records, including census information, were used to obtain demographic descriptions of the local community. There was an examination of available documents including school board minutes and policy statements. A focused interview schedule was used for individual respondents. Study Population Below is a list of the different respondents from whom data were collected in April, 1971. The instrument used in this investigation was developed by the United States Office of Education. Eggggg Number* Community Full-time 80 Community-at-large 12 Drake University 10 Des Moines Public Schools a. b. C. Teachers 11 Principals 4 Central Administrators 9 City of Des Moines 7 15 £5232 Number* 6. Model Cities 2 7. Settlement House Association 1 8. United Way 2 9. Junior Chamber of Commerce 1 10. Iowa Children and Family Services 2 11. Chamber of Commerce 1 12. Higher Educational Facilities Study 2 l3. Polk County Department of Social Services 1 14. Child Guidance Clinic 2 15. Polk County Schools 3 16. Des Moines Taxpayer Association 1 17. Teacher Corps __Z 155 *Number of individuals chosen to be full time charrette participants. Below is a list of the different respondent groups and individuals that were interviewed in the attempt to measure the impact of Charrette '71 on the community eighteen months later. The instrument used was developed by the investigator, with assistance from the Research and Evaluation Department of the Louisville Board of Education: £5232 Number 1. Community Full-time a. Bird Elementary School b. Grant Elementary School c. Kirkwood Elementary School 4‘4-‘4-‘4‘ d. Nash Elementary School 2. Community-at-large 3 l6 nggp Number 3. Des Moines Public Schools a. Teachers 1. Grant 2 2. Nash IQ b. Principals and Assistant Principals 1. Bird 1 2. Kirkwood 1 c. Central Administrators 3 4. Co-ordinators a. Bird-~Grant 1 b. Nash--Kirkland ”I \ll-‘ Total Definition of Terms Used Charrette (Charrette, Charrette Process)--For the purpose of this study, a charrette is a planning technique for considering and resolving educational facility problems. Charrette '7l--The name given to the charrette that was conducted in Des Moines, Iowa, in April of 1971. Community-at-large--Neighborhood residents from anywhere in the city of Des Moines, Iowa. Community-full-time--Neighborhood residents from the individual school communities. ‘ Educational Facilities-~For the purpose of this study, educational facilities are architectural facilities that are designed 17 for educational usage, but which are not restricted by the "traditional" concept of education. Lay Citizens--A person not possessing the technical knowledge or skills of the professional educator and who is not serving as a member of the public school staff or as a school board member. Poverty--The poverty definition (as developed by the Social Security Administration) is based on the minimum food needs and others needs of families, taking account of family size, number of children, and farm/non-farm residence. The poverty threshold for a non-farm family of four is $4,000. Professional Educator-~A person who has formally acquired special technical skills or knowledge about the educational process: benefits derived from the utilization of these skills are the source of his livelihood. School-Community--This term identifies the geographical area which is limited by the residences of school enrollees with the designated school district boundaries. Traditionally Designed Facilities-~For the purpose of this study, "traditionally designed facilities" refers to educational facilities that are designed by and for educational administrators, rather than by and for the total community. Urban Areas-~The Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area which is defined by the United States Bureau of the Census as a county 18 containing one central city of at least 50,000 persons and contiguous counties that are socially integrated with the central city. There are three Metropolitan Neighborhood Types: 1. The middle- and upper-class suburb and city enclave which contains most of the better housing in the metropolitan area and in which living expensese are sufficiently high so that most city residents cannot afford to live there. 2. The type that contains the largest part of the metropolitan pOpulation and is comprised of working-class suburbs and fringe areas of the city. 3. The type that is the core or inner-city area, which contains the oldest, least desirable housing in the city, or relatively new but often crowded public housing units which offer 'housing of the last resort' to ige aged, the poor and, most recently, the blacks. Limitations of the Study A case study approach was used. Evidence that is presented is applicable to the local setting that was studied and should not be generalized beyond that setting. The data used to evaluate Charrette '71 at the end of the charrette (April, 1971) was obtained from an instrument selected and administered by the Charrette '71 staff. The instrument used needs to be revised to insure the validity of collected data. The comparative reactions are based upon data obtained from two different instruments, and are personal to the investigator. Event though the questions from each instrument were catagorized (General Reaction to the Charrette and Relationships Between School 15Campbell, 22: cit., p. 5. l9 and Community), accepted research techniques do not view this method as being empirically sound. Summary of Chapter 1 Chapter I has been devoted to introducing and explaining the study. A relatively new concept in educational facility planning (The Charrette Process) was presented along with the writer's basis for the study. This study has three major purposes: (1) to give a description of Charrette '71; (2) to evaluate Charrette '71 at the end of its duration; and (3) to attempt to measure the impact of Charrette '71 eighteen months later. The problem, the significance of the problem and the assumptions have all been stated in some detail. The study population was indicated along with the procedure used for obtaining data. The limitations of the study as well as the definition of terms were also included. Chapter II contains a review of related and pertinent literature. Chapter III is an anecdotal report of Charrette '71. Chapter IV contains the presentation and description of data. Chapter V contains a summary, conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of the literature for this study encompasses the following areas: 1. Attitude change through the group decision process; 2. Community involvement; 3. Community Schools; 4. Educational Facility Planning; 5. A brief history of educational and architectural planning; 6. The history and the evolution of charrettes. Attitude Change through the Group Decision Process The dynamics of an intensified planning process such as a charrette undoubtedly credits much of its origin to the studies and works on group decision and social change. "The meaning and the overall effort of a group decision depends upon the nature of the process itself, and upon the position of the group, within the total social field."16 16Kurt Lewin, "Group Decision and Social Change" in E. H. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley, Readings in Social Psychology, (New York: Holt, 1958), p. 197. 20 21 Lewin was a great believer in the philos0phy that "it is easier to change the ideology and social practice of a small group handled together than of a single individual."17 Educators have also found that this philosophy holds true to pattern in education. "One of the reasons why 'group carried changes' are more readily brought about seems to be the unwillingness of the individual to depart too far from groups standards; he is likely to change only if the group changes."18 Perhaps the most important element of the group process is that it allows for interaction and involvement in the form of discussion. Individuals in the group will tend to be encouraged and strengthened by other pe0ple who have similar ideas and beliefs. The feeling of belonging and unity prevails over the pressure which often accompanies an individual problem.solving process. ”Since discussion involves active participation of the audience and chance to express motivations the audience might be more ready 'to make up its mind', that is, to make a decision after a group discussion than after a lecture."19 "Closer scrutiny shows that both the mass approach and the individual place the individual in a quasi-private, psycholo- gically isolated situation with himself and his own ideas. Although he may, physically, be part of a group listening to a 17Ibid., p. 202. 18Ibid., p. 203. 19Ibid., 22 lecture, for example, he finds himself, psychologically speaking, in an individual situation."20 It is apparent that social change, especially with any degree of permanence, is greatly influenced by the group decision process. This process has been used with a marked degree of success to promote changes of various natures. This process has been adopted and modified to fit the purposes and goals of charrette. Community Involvement In almost every modern school of thought throughout the United States concerning education, and most social organizations, community involvement is a large and very important part of their phiIOSOphy. Too often, however, the pretext of effective community involvement is used to pacify and mislead citizens, rather than the utilization of total involvement as early and as completely as possible. Most traditional bureaucracies are highly reluctant to become involved in true shared-decision-making with the community residents. The United States Office of Education is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, advocates of community involvement in its quest to solve many of our nation's social ills. From its many and varied studies, the U. S. Office of Education stated: . . . What the cities really need are new kinds of schools, structures which contribute in a big way toward solving educational, social, economic, and physical woes of the city. The city needs schools on which to build a better city. 'The Schoolhouse In the City' is an exhibit of the newest and best approaches to this new kind of 201bid., 23 city school. Some of the projects depicted will soon be in operation. Others may never get off the drawing board. Certainly none of the propo- sitions is simple. They are complex and expensive because the size of our difficulties forbids niggling answers. The projects are designed for local situations--available space, particular residential patterns, special tOpography. But they share excellence of thought and planning and, taken collectively, demonstrate the creativity that must underlie and precede any urban renewal worthy of the name.2 Other departments of the federal government have conducted research and have published information concerning the need for further study on ways to implement charrette and charrette-like processes in our cities. Specifically the Urban Renewal and Model Cities Programs have built into their guidelines and their goals the upgrading of education within these areas. Campbell states: . . the Model Cities Program.must strengthen rather than supersede or cripple existing agencies. At the same time, each agency that is involved must sharpen its own focus and clarify its own goals. Appropriate action by one agency will often need the facilitation of action by another. For example, if modern, attractive, servicable, and safe schools are to be constructed, such agencies as building standards authorities must examine their codes and apply their regulations so as to encourage, rather than hinder, progress. . . The effective school program in the urban center is one that provides a full range of instructional activities and is continually sensitive and responsive to the needs of the community. The instructional program is supported and reinforced by health and nutrition services, by guidance and counseling, and by job placement and follow-up services. Its student body is the whole community--toddlers to senior citizens-- with appropriate educational services for every age. Its time schedule must extend from early 21Campbell, et. al., 92. cit., p. 33. 24 morning to late evening--twelve months a year. The school in the urban center must be the most accessible resource in the community. It can be a great unifying force and can strengthen the neighborhood by enriching the lives of its peeple. Urban Renewal Programs have somewhat the same philosophy. Harold B. Cores, president, Educational Facilities Laboratories, states "the possibilities for join funding 'are limited only by the vision of the people and agencies involved.’ He suggests that schools should look to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for money and that other federal agencies could also be a source of funds for such projects as day care, health, geriatric or job training facilities."23 A study by the Louisville Board of Education shows that "dazzling new buildings--whether they be governmental offices, public schools, or public housing--parks and expressways, do not, in themselves, revitalize a city. The measure of a city's greatness is the sum total of the physical, emotional, and spirtual well-being of the people who live therein. Real renewal can only spring from the aspirations and capabilities of the people themselves.”24 The study further indicates: l. The schools offer the most promising focus for social efforts to improve a community. 22Campbell, et. al., 22. cit., p. 32. 23American School and University, op. cit., p. 44. 24Lousiville Board of Education, "CDSS Program", (Louisville: Board of Education, 1971). 25 2. Fragmented and isolated efforts, even though they are in themselves soundly conceived, frequently produce negligible results and become costly to society. Tonigan, who has been very instrumental in a number of charrettes, indicates that: . . . The introduction of the now internationally utilized PERT and CMP processes caused facility administrators to modify how they managed construction projects; the charrette process is creating a parallel management concern. Plant administration wants to know: What is the charrette process? What are its benefits? How can charrettes effectively be implemented? At least two research projects are seeking composite answers to these questions. On the West Coast, Adrian M. Stanga of the University of Southern California, is conducting research for his doctoral dissertation on recent United States charrettes; a questionnaire he prepared was recently completed by charrette sponsors. Mr. Stanga is now synthesizing the data and writing his dissertation. In England, another doctoral student, Alan Mossman of Liverpool, United Kingdom, is conducting a similar charrette research study. When the results of these two studies have disseminated we should have some interesting data to guide us in the design and implementation of future charrettes. Community Schools Dr. Marilyn Steele, Consultant for Planning Services, Mott Foundation Projects, Flint, Michigan, states: Planning a community school facility is a complex task since the plan must meet both current and future community needs. Community residents live each day immersed in the problems of their environment. As such, they provide a valid nucleus for the planning team who will identify problems and transform community hopes into long-range goals. Strategies 25Ibid., pp. 1-2. 26Richard R. Tonigan, "Reduce Planning Time--Have a 'Charrette', School Management, (April, 1972). 26 for this goal achievement include educational planning for the entire population within the district boundaries. The Community School must educate both children and adults whether they seek recreation or basic learning; it is the heart of the community--the center of community aspirations for both young and old. Service centers for health, public assistance, and law enforcement or other social agencies may all be included within the school plant. The community defines the goals, the planning team defines the program, and the architect designs the building. Thus, the planning process for a Community School has three phases: 1. Research Phase A. Selection of team members B. Organizing community resources 2. Charrette Phase A. Determining local needs B. Developing community goals 3. Design Phase A. Designing the program B. Architectural design, fi§5ing the building to the program. Facility Planning Educational facilities planning studies are not new to the educational structure of our nation. However, rapid changes in technology, and the rapid increase in pOpulation (especially school age children) have brought about a need for more sophisticated and scientific methods of educational planning than was necessary years ago. Consequently, many professional groups and organizations (private, public and governmental) have been established to offer technical assistance to local communities. 27Marilyn Steele, "Humanizing Schools: The Community School Planning Process; CEFP Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, (May-June, 1970), p. 9. 27 One such organization is the Educational Facilities Laboratories (henceforth referred to as EFL) was established by the Ford Foundation in 1958 to help schools and colleges with their physical facilities--their buildings and equipment. The following is a description of their basic approach to providing educational facilities: . . The systems approach has provided schools that are more flexible (therefore slower to obsolete), better lighted, more comfortable, quieter, and economically responsive to educa- tional change. In a period of sharply rising costs, system building is helping to stabilize prices by reducing design and construction time. In twelve years, EFL has advanced the notion of flexibility of design from ridicule to general acceptance. It has helped to create buildings in which teachers, children, and curriculum can cut their own pathways through the space. Schools and colleges, following EFL's precepts, are now achieving higher productivity per square foot, thereby releasing money from the containment of education to the improvement of its process. 28 Since its inception, EFL insists that it has been the principal agent over the last decade in transplanting industrialized building systems for schools to this continent. As a result they have on their list of publications more than twenty-five reports, five technical reports, and three newsletters. They also have three films. EFL is doing what is conceived to be a tremendous job of planning and assisting with the planning of educational facilities throughout the nation. Nevertheless, they are not about the 28'Charrette", (United States Office of Education, Washington, D. C., 1971). 28 business of utilizing the facility planning process as a catalyst to help solve other social problems as well. Brief History of Educational Architectural Planning Progress in facilities planning has followed the evolution of architecture. As American architecture emerged from its earlier stage of architecturism and lay practice, the main concern was develOping technical competence. This stage was a stage of professionalism. Architecture has moved beyond this stage since every architect is reasonably competent in technical terms. Once technical competence is assured, concern shifts to the questions of utility and aesthetics of the product. How does the facility fit the environment? Does it function properly in human terms? Is the client really satisfied? Frank Lloyd Wright pioneered in this area in the 1890's. He was controversial in his long practice for his insistence on meeting with clients and even turning down commissions if he felt that he did not have the proper rapport with the needs of the client. While acknowledged in his field as inflexible, tyrannical and egocentric, in his autobiography he states, "No client must take anything he doesn't want".29 Wright's clients of necessity were like-minded with the designer and believed in him when they came to him. If a client wanted something that struck Wright as a bad design, he denounced the idea in strong terms. But if he saw the 29Frank Lloyd Wright, An American Architecture, (New York: Horizon Press, 1955). 29 client's heart was set on it, he immediately turned to his persuasive vein saying, "Let me show you how you can have the same thing, only so much better."30 Another statement that typifies the type of thinking that made Frank Lloyd Wright an architectural prophet was: . . . No man can build a building for another who does not believe in him, who does not believe in what he believes in, and who has not chosen him because of this faith, knowing what he can do. That is the nature of architect and client as I see it. When a man wants to build a building he seeks an interpreter, does he not? He seeks some man who has the technique to express that thing which he himself desires but cannot do. 'So, should a man come to me for a building, he would be ready for me3 It would be what I could do that he wanted. 1 ‘ Until the early 50's most architects, including Frank Lloyd Wright and a few of his followers, believed that they were the experts and their only concern was to design a building that was a magnificient piece of art. While his egomania often led him to ignore clients' wishes, his emphasis on function and utility were to revolutionize facility design. The trend was that professional architects began to be concerned with the needs of the client, and slowly turned to including clients as participants in the planning process. School planning followed the same time lag, letting professionals do all of the planning and designing. To illuminate the type of trend that was portrayed in this era, a couple of examples will be cited. The first is by Minard W. 3OIbid., p. 6. 311bid., p. 88. 3O Stout, an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at the University of Minnesota, in his symposium, "Utilize the Teaching Staff in Planning A FUnctional High School Building". He states that: . . . There is no guarantee that a new secondary school building will automatically provide a good learning planned for, carefully and specifically, through the cooperative efforts of a number of people: the architect, the superintendent, the principal, the board of education, and Egghgpg a Citizens committee. But the key person in the important enterprise should be the one who can best judge the educational needs of high school pupils-~the one through whom.the new school building will actually fulfill its purpose of motivating its pupils toward their optimum growth as desirable citizens. The key person in the new secondary school building should be the teacher. The effective utilization of classroom teachers in the planning of buildings met another obstacle in the form of community planning committees. It became the popular thing to appoint such a committee. Many superintendents and boards of education, while riding on the band wagon, have publicized such committees as a democratic approach to better school buildings. They have done this without apparent embarrassment that their teachers have been bypassed, ignored, or assigned minor reSponsibilities. They have used a citizens committee thus to advise the board of education, superintendent, and architects in the planning of a building which teachers were expected to utilize. Are citizens committees better qualified than teachers to state the school building needs? It is true that certain suggestions might come from them that are not likely to be made by teachers. But, of what purpose are the results of such suggestions if they are not utilized? In their place, the building might have some things that teachers would suggest and would 31 utilize in the learning program of the school. Planning a new school building requires more than an interest, certainly.3 Another example of planning educational facilities in this era is exemplified by T. Norman.Mansell, a school architect from.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in his article, "A School for Tomorrow's Needs," . . . This building, the Primos School, represents the creative planning efforts of the administrative and teaching personnel, the school board, the architect, and the maintenance staff. The planning procedure worked ideally and practically. The school board, in effect, stated, 'It is up to us to sell the need to the public, to secure funds, and to have plans and data presented to us for review and approval; but it is up to the school system's teaching staff and the architect to establish the program of detailed requirements'.33 Though the architectural trends of thought in the 50's were centered around professional planning, there were a few students of the Frank Lloyd Wright school of thought-~to involve the client in the designing of buildings. The need to plan in human terms first began to show in the educational setting when school districts began to appoint educators with graduate training to oversee facility planning. However, the responsibility for the planning and equipping of new schools is an overwhehming proposition. How could any one person be sure that what was eventually recom- mended would be best for the education of children today and in 32Minard W. Stout, "Utilize the Teaching Staff in Planning A FUnctional High School Building",.mmerican School and University, Vol. 24, (1952-53), p. 131. 33T. Norman Mansell, "A School for Tomorrow's Needs", American School and University, Vol. 24, (1952-53), p. 213. 32 the future? Consequently, the move for involving the cooperation of many people was considered. C00perative planning to meet the educational building needs of communities moved steadily ahead in 1951. The desirability of cooperative planning is no longer in question. Emphasis is now directed to what to do and how to do it. More and more communities are employing it to some degree. It is common practice now to find committees composed of citizens, professionals, school people, architects, engineers, and school board members, working together to find solutions to their problems. It may well be that one of the significant achievements of the 50's will be the acceptance and use of cooperative planning as a new means to obtaining better school housing. Educators, architects, planners and other professionals have seen that a total involvement is necessary in solving the educational facility problem effectively. Consequently, educators have begun to welcome this participation. Their purpose was to assure that facilities meet school needs. More recently the fact that school needs are human needs has been recognized--hence, the charrette! Interestingly, charrette is a group or community version of the approach pioneered by Frank Lloyd Wright eighty years ago. The History and the Evolution of Charrettes For more than four years the charrette process has been believed to be a productive and innovative method in facility planning and in problem solving throughout the United States. "As a result, school districts across the nation have conducted 33 charrettes to master-plan new campuses, to analyze curriculum.and facility requirements, and to plan rehabilitation projects."34 The charrette process has also been utilized in planning health facilities, community centers, junior colleges, and other community- centered facilities. "Charrette was developed in 1968 by Walter E. Mylecraine while he was Assistant Commissioner for Construction Services at the United States Office of Education. It aims to improve design for both community and local authority while eliminating delays caused by irate citizens not consulted during the design process."35 The name "charrette" is derived from the French word, "little cart", (which were two wheeled, hand-pulled carts). Students from Ecole des Beau Arts Architectural School used a charrette ("little cart") to rush examination drawings, renderings, and models through the narrow and crowded streets of Paris to the studios of their professors. Crying, "charrette! charrette!" they raced through the streets, applying last minute changes as they ran. "The intense final effort made by students to complete their solutions to a given problem in the allotted time, in order to catch the charrette, took the same name. Today it is the name given to this process in which members of the community join with officials, experts and other interested parties to solve a common 34Tonigan, 92, cit., p. l. 35Mossman, op, cit., p. 1. 34 problem."36 In essence, it connotes a crash project, complete with deadline and around-the-clock brainstorming.37 In Sherwood D. Kohn's report, "The Experiment in Planning an Urban High School: The Baltimore Charrette," he further explains some of Mylecraine's ideas on the charrette process: . . . Mylecraine felt that architects could no longer maintain their traditionally detached attitude toward design. He advocated that architects, rather than spending their entire planning time isolated from the client (which, in the largest sense, could be a whole community), should immerse themselves in the environment, closet themselves for a Specific length of time with consultants and representatives of the conmunity, and be directed to hammer out a design concept closely related to a total milieu. Furthermore, at all points in the planning process short of actually creating a structural design, the public would be intimately involved as a major participant. Lay representatives of the community would take part in brainstorming sessions and make their constituents' desires known. Professional consultants would listen, advise, mediate, and help compose a usable set of proposals or guidelines for the ultimate designers, and representatives of the community power structure--its decision-makers-- would be directly confronted with these pr0posals. Ideally, the decision-makers would be involved in the guidelines' creation and would, therefore, find it difficult to disapprove them on the grounds of a lack of prior knowledge, of not having been consulted, of not being committed, etc. Architects would take part in the discussion as professional consultants, Mylecraine felt, in order to translate the charrette's proposals into concepts that could easily be used by other architects who would perform the actual task of design. In other words, the charrette architects 351bid., p. 2. 37Kohn, pp. cit., p. 21. 35 would pre-digest their fellow conferee's abstract ideas and feed them to their professional colleagues almost intravenously. The first charrette was tried by Mylecraine during the spring of 1968 in Columbus, Ohio. The Ohio State University School of Architecture played host to sixty-five professionals and students from all over the country. For two weeks, the charrette dealt with school-related urban problems in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Hartford, and Baltimore in an intensive series of dialogues, and produced programs which were then submitted for further consideration in three of the four cities.39 The most important and notable detail here is the fact that no community participation was involved. A second charrette was held in January, 1969, in College Park, Maryland. In this charrette the University of Maryland's School of Architecture gathered some fifty students and profes- sionals to confer in a charrette with a wide variety of citizens from Calvert County, Maryland. The object: to help that predom- inantly rural county assess its master plan, in relation to the future, of its total education programs "The Calvert County Charrette proved successful, but it grappled with a relatively simple set of social problems. How would a charrette work under difficult circumstances, i.e., in an urban area beset by poverty, poor housing, political impotence, and racial tensions?"40 38Ibid. 39Ibid. 401bid., p. 22 36 Larry Reich, (Director of Baltimore Department of Planning), who saw the charrette as a catalyst for social and physical rejuvenation, suggested that Mylecraine try Baltimore's Dunbar Project as an experiment in the community school planning under complex, even explosive, conditions. Mylecraine consented and, in doing so, initiated a search for answers to questions even more fundamental than those concerned with the shape of a school.42 Thus, in February of 1969, Baltimore hosted the third charrette and the first urban charrette. The task of the Dunbar Charrette was a critical one. Since Dunbar is an urban school, located in an inner-city burdened with alienation and deprivation, it was assumed that Dunbar's difficulties were inextricably entangled with almost every other social and economic problem plaguing the area.43 The Baltimore Dunbar Charrette was an overwhelming success. It represented total involvement at its best. The Baltimore charrette process has been credited with bringing in over twenty- seven million dollars for community facilities and programs. Approximately twelve million of those dollars were to be used for a new Dunbar High School, which is presently more than half—way through construction. A new health center resulted from the Baltimore Charrette. The charrette has also been credited with increasing political awareness in the Dunbar area and the black 411b1d. 421bid. 37 community of Baltimore as a whole. The number of black city councilmen has been increased from one to five, and there has also been an increase in black state legislators. (This information was obtained from an interview with Mrs. Hattie Harrison, who was chairman of the Baltimore Charrette.) There have been approximately forty charrettes since the Baltimore Charrette. The fourth charrette was in Thomasville, Georgia with the integration of the one new high school as the major problem. The fifth charrette was in Raleigh, North Carolina, at the Shaw University. A few other charrettes that have been conducted are: "The Albuquerque Health Charrette," Albuquerque, New Mexico, February, 1970; "The Bozema Public School Educational Charrette," Bozema, Montana, June, 1970; "Little Tennessee Valley Charrette", "Tri-County Educational Involvement", Bount, London and Monroe Counties in Tennessee, October, 1970; "York Charrette", York, Pennsylvania, April, 1970; "Charrette '71", Des Meines, Iowa, April, 1971. Lawrence, Kansas' Bureau of Indian Affairs and the students and faculty of Haskell Indian Junior College worked to re-master-plan the campus. The Ganado, Arizona charrette consisted of students from the University of Mexico Educational Facilities Planning Class assisting a community learning center to plan the conversion of a high school into a post-secondary education center. In Sacaton, Arizona, an all-Indian parents' group worked to guide the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the planning of a new school-community 38 center.43 Descriptions of major charrettes between 1969 and 1971 are found in Appendix E. It should be kept in mind that there are many different types of charrettes, and the process may be utilized for designing specifications for any community centered facility. Charrettes may be used for planning projects that are rural, urban, educational, social, health, recreational, public, racial, ethnic, private, K-12, higher education, vocational, and many other reasons, or a combination of many reasons. Summary of Chapter II This section was devoted to the explaining and reviewing literature and research related to the charrette process. Some thought was given to the important dynamics of group decision- making as it deals with social and attitudinal change. The research indicates that is it easier to change the ideology and social practice of a small group handled together than of a single individual. The literature stressed the importance of community involvement in decision.making on matters that concern them. The community school concept was viewed as an integral and most important aspect of educational facilities planning. The review also pointed out professional trends in educational facility planning. 43Tonigan, 92, cit., p. 2. A brief history of educational and architectural planning was included, as well as a comprehensive reporting of the history and the evolution of charrettes. Chapter III will attempt to describe, in detail, Charrette '71. 39 CHAPTER III DESCRIPTION OF CHARRETTE '71 Introduction In this chapter an indepth study of the educational facilities charrette that was conducted in Des Moines, Iowa, in April of 1971, will be discussed. That charrette is hereafter referred to as "Charrette '71". The Des Moines Public School System was faced with precisely the same problem that urban systems throughout the nation, and the world, were faced with. That problem was how to effectively provide and plan educational facilities. Not unlike many school systems, the Des Moines school system in the past had designed school facilities without the help, consultation, or even the consideration of anyone other than professional educators, architects, and other related professionals. However, in 1968 the administration of the Des Moines school system decided that citizen involvement in educational planning was considered not only fashionable, but necessary and proper. Many different processes and methods were used in planning throughout the school district; however, the communities of Bird- Grand and Nash-Kirkwood decided to use the charrette process to plan their schools. The census map on page 43 shows the location of these communities within the Des Moines metropolitan area. 40 41 Action started when the school system and a Citizen's Advisory Committee teamed up to launch a city-wide school building construction program, Citizens in the attendance areas of each of the building projects, approved by voters, were involved in the planning of these new facilities. These new schools were of special significance to both inner-city communities and the school system. Achievement levels far below the norm for Des Moines elementary schools were a common source of frustration. For community, the low achievement levels represented a serious handicap to its goals and aspirations. It meant that many children would be at a disadvantage when they moved to junior and senior high school and would have to "compete" against children.who came from schools where achievement levels were higher. It also meant that education would not be reaching its potential as an ally in the struggle against unemployment and underemployment, poor housing, discrimination, and the other social conditions so common in inner-city communities throughout our nation. For the school system, the low achievement levels were an indication that the many special and compensatory programs which had been programmed into these inner-city schools were not creating the degree of change needed and desired in these communities--a pattern also found nationally. The limited changes wrought by these programs did, however, serve to underscore and sharpen an awareness of the complexity and tenacity of the problems involved with providing effective education for children from racial minorities of low socio-economic backgrounds. This awareness and the increasing refusal by communities to accept the responsibility for 42 CENSUS TRACTS IN THE DES MOINES, IOWA SMSA - ' . --.£'_: .- j . T . a 7 ‘5 5 __JuuL__se_. .J x i s 0 \__//W "on. "I . -. “ _ f 3:}. _\ l 9 g 10 ‘5' ll 12 _. NASH m INSET A - DES MOINES Figure l U. D. DIPAR‘I'MBNT OF COMMERCE IUIIAU 0' Till CINSUS VI - r-o .- ~ 1 INSET B - ANKENY AREA mo Dunn of W and um CENSUS TRACY! DES HOMES. OOWA STANDARD DETRO'OLIYAN IfA‘l’lSflCAL AREA "I I"! man-n 43 poor school performance but rather to hold the school accountable for what happened to their children suggested a need for the school and community to combine forces for the improvement of education. Aside from the improved educational program and outcomes envisioned in these new schools, the buildings themselves were symbolically significant. To the communities, the presence of new school buildings was the reversal of a trend in which their schools were closed but not replaced; a trend which symbolized what residents sawfhappening to their communities generally. The commitment to building new elementary schools in these communities was important to citizens looking for evidence of progress in their efforts to stop the deterioration of assets, both human and physical, which are necessary for creating and maintaining an improved community. A new school held the promise of continued investment in the community. It stood above the rhetoric of social concern as a reason for continuing to care, h0pe, and build. To the school system, the new elementary buildings and the educational programs they were designed to support were seen as opportunities to exhibit to the total Des Moines community a commitment to quality education for inner-city residents. It was intended that this quality program would serve as a magnet school to attract children from throughout the city and would serve as one way of involving the larger community in achieving racially integrated school experiences. The Charrette Becomes a Reality The Des Moines Public System in cooperation with the State Department of Public Instruction sponsored a program on community 44 participation and involvement in planning inner-city school facilities during the fall of 1969. Letters were sent to Iowa superintendents, school board members, professors of education and interested citizens, inviting them to attend an evening meeting to hear about "Charrette", a relatively new method of planning schools. The featured speaker was Walter E. Mylecraine, former Assistant Commissioner for Education, United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, who discussed the charrette concept as a technique for planning school facilities. Interest generated by Mylecraine and central office personnel in using the charrette concept to plan inner-city facilities developed in Des Moines at an opportune time. The school system had to plan two new inner-city replacement schools as part of its current four-year $18 million building program. This interest continued to grow until the summer of 1970, at which time a Coordinator of Planning and a Director for a newly created Drake-Des Moines Institute were appointed and charged with the responsibility of assisting one of the two remaining elementary communities in planning their school. The charrette technique was one of several options available to plan the facilities. In December of 1970, representatives of the school system began to work ernestly with the four communities to intensely involve residents in the planning and decision-making processes regarding the design of the new educational program and facilities. Residents were wary! They had been asked to be "involved" before! There were many suspicions about the school system's motives and 45 about ending up being used or being asked to "rubber stamp" what had already been decided. As work toward establishing the charrette progressed, members of the communities communicated to school representatives many times in many different ways that their continued involvement in the project should not be interpreted as evidence that the basic suspicions were no longer present. Community participation, motivated abiding faith in the potential of education, and a desire to increase the community's influence in educational matters did continue and culminated in Charrette '71. The charrette become a reality November 17, 1970 when the Board of Education approved a recommendation by the Superintendent of Schools to use a single charrette to plan the two new inner-city elementary schools which would replace four existing structures. Shortly thereafter the charrette was assured when the school system committed $15,000 on November 25, 1970, to the project; Model Cities notified the school of a $20,000 appropriation on December 16, 1970, and the Polk County Superintendent's Office allocated $5,000 on December 17, 1970. Other financial commitments were made later by other agencies, organizations and institutions, but the $40,000 provided a basis to guarantee that sufficient funds were available to conduct an educational facilities charrette. The Steering Committee Organization and structure. The steering committee is the body that does the actual planning of a charrette. It is often referred to as the "pre-charrette committee". The formation of an effective charrette steering committee is probably the single 46 ‘most important step toward the creation of a successful charrette. Certain.conditions must be met when establishing a steering committee if it is to function in behalf of the community, be viewed as community oriented rather than institutionally controlled, and be trusted by residents in the community. The Des Moines Charrette Steering Committee was organized as follows: 1. The community had the voting majority to guarantee that their interests, desires, needs, and problems were considered. 2. Residents of the area representing the community were elected at open public meetings. 3. Committee officers were residents of the communities and were elected rather than appointed. 4. Agencies, organizations, and institutions that were needed to provide information, financial or in-kind support, an administrative structure to assist in the implementation of plans after the Charrette, and support in the larger community were identified by resident members elected to the Steering Committee. 3. Representatives from agencies, organizations and institutions were persons in decision-making positions or reported directly to persons in decisiondmaking positions. 6. The Steering Committee had an abiding interest in helping the community members solve its problems and were available to participate in all charrette activites.44 The Des Moines Steering Committee consisted of twenty-seven persons who officially met for the first time January 18, 1971. The Committee was designated initially to be small so the community ‘would have the opportunity to increase its size later if it so desired. Composition of the original steering committee was as follows: 44Link, 22. cit., p. 4. 47 Representation Constituency Number of Representatives Residents from the Immediate Area Bird Elementary Attendance Area 4 Grant Elementary Attendance Area 4 Kirkwood Elementary Attendance Area 4 Nash Elementary Attendance Area 4 Residents from community at large 3 Representatives from Agencies, Organizations and/or Institutions Model Cities 1 State Department of Instruction 1 Des Moines School District 1 Polk County Superintendent's Office 1 Drake University 1 City Government 1 Greater Opportunities 1 Chamber of Commerce 1 Total 27 Site selection. After becoming organized into a functional and working body, one of the first tasks the Charrette Steering Committee undertook was to determine the sites that would be recom- mended to the Board of Education for the two new replacement schools. Residents living in the Bird, Grant, Nash, and Kirkwood Elementary School Attendance Areas also had an opportunity to take an active part in the site selection process. Many residents exercised this privilege as one meeting alone had approximately one hundred persons present. Yet, at other cruicial public hearings there were less than twenty persons attending. There was considerable distrust of the school (administration and the Des Moines Board of Education) as to whether the community would really be allowed to decide such an important matter as locations of their schools. Even though the school had indicated 48 their recommendation would be that of the steering committee, uncertainty prevailed until the steering committee's recommendation went to the Board of Education unchanged. Prior to determining the actual site recommendation that went to the Board of Education, considerable time and effort was given by the city, school, and community in deliberating the matter. The following dates present the events leading up to the night of March 16, 1971 when a site recommendation was drafted by the steering committee: 93.22 £2222 February 16, 1971 Charrette Planning Committee requested the school to present site possibilities February 25, 1971 Site possibilities presented to the Charrette Steering Committee March 9-11, 1971 . Public meetings held to discuss site locations being proposed by the Steering Committee March 16, 1971 Steering Committee drafted site proposal for Board of Education March 30, 1971 Board of Education approved Steering Committee's site recommendation The Steering Committee's site recommendation was unanimously approved by the Board of Education. This fact, plus the Committee's recommendation being unchanged, helped alleviate some of the community's fear that the Board of Education would not heed their advice. Planning the Charrette The most important function of the Charrette Steering Com- mittee is the planning of the Charrette. Much time, effort, and 49 thought has to go into a project of this magnitude. Working with the two coordinators appointed by the school system, the steering committee must determine when and where the charrette is to be held. The steering committee must'also decide who is to participate, how the charrette will be conducted, and many other decisions concerning the charrette. Meetings to plan the charrette officially started December 22, 1970, and ended March 27, 1971. During this three-month period, eight committees were organized to carry on the necessary work to operationalize this unique planning process. All committees were chaired by community residents. Each member of the steering committee served on at least one of the eight committees, depending upon their area ofinterestmand expertise. These committees were as follows: Charrette Location Committee-—This committee had the responsibility of finding a suitable site for the Charrette. The facility used to house the Charrette had to be large enough to accommodate approximately one hundred and fifty persons, house office workers, and be reasonably accessible to residents living in the area. Several buildings were considered, but the Knights of Columbus Building was used since it was judged to meet the needs of the Charrette. Charrette Participation Committee--This committee probably had the most difficult task to perform during the pre-charrette period. Who would participate in the charrette, how would parti- cipants be selected, and how much participants would be paid were but a few of the many questions they had to answer. This committee, with the approval of the steering committee, developed the following policies to govern participant selections: 1. Members of the steering committee auto- matically participate in the charrette. 50 2. An additional sixteen residents from each of the elementary attendance areas of Bird, Grant, Nash, and Kirkwood plus nine addi- tional residents from the community-at-large were selected to participate in the charrette. 3. All residents selected to participate received a minimum of $25 per day for their attendance at both day and evening meetings. Residents who were employed and made more than $25 per day, received the $25 mimimum pay plus an additional amount to make up the difference between their income and the $25 base pay. 4. High school students selected to participate received $10 per day for their attendance at both day and evening meetings. 5. The four area residents and three resident representatives-at-large selected the additional community residents using the following guidelines: The sixteen representatives selected should: a. Represent all age groups using the following breakdown: (1) Two students (2) Six adults 19 to 30 (3) Five adults 30 to 65 (4) Two adults over 65 b. Reflect the racial composition of the school in their community attended. c. Represent the range of viewPoints found in the community. d. Be representative of both sexes. While provision was made to pay people to participate in the Charrette, it should be noted as a matter of record that persons representing agencies and employees released with pay were not reimbursed by the Charrette. Every effort was made to notify the public about the Charrette. Application blanks to participate in the Charrette were mailed and distributed to residents living in the four elementary attendance areas, ads were placed in the newspapers, and radio and television carried public announcements to publicize the Charrette and encourage participation. Once 51 the deadline for application had been reached, slections were made by the four residents serving on the steering committee. The committee terminated its work.with a meeting to acquaint prospective participants with their responsi- bilities and the Charrette process. Design of Charrette Committee--The results of the work of this committee will be covered later in a special section which shall also be called 'Design of Charrette Committee'. Publicity Committee--The Publicity Committee developed and implemented an ambitious program to keep the community informed, notify the public of the need for community participation, and acquaint residents with the Charrette process. Every conceivable form of communi- cation was used to keep the Charrette before the public. The newspaper, radio, and television were of particular assistance and provided excellent coverage. Posters, handbills, notices through the mail, and a telephone dial-a-message were used extensively. Even a sound truck.was used to publicize evening meetings during the Charrette. Another valuable source of communication was provided by members of the steering committee and interested citizens who, through personal contacts with neighbors and friends, talked about the Charrette they were planning. The Charrette would surely have fallen short of expectations without this person-to-person communication. Selection of Consultants Committee--This committee had the responsibility of identifying and recruiting consultants to serve as resource persons in the areas of education, school facilities, community development, and community-school programs. In addition to needing technical assistance in the areas above, the Charrette also required the services of a communication expert to aid in facilitating discussion. The committee was able to secure the services of very capable people who provided the needed assistance. Data Collection Committee--Members of this committee spent the majority of their time identifying the kinds of information they wanted. Then, they asked the city and school to obtain it for them. The city provided considerable demographic data regarding land use, transportation, recreation, social services, etc. Maps and information generated by the city prior to the Charrette when school sites were being selected 52 were of particular help. The school collected information concerning achievement, attendance, teacher preparation, financial expenditures, and other related data on the four schools being replaced. All information was made available to the public during the Charrette. Child Care Committee--The need to provide day and evening care for children did not materialize during the Charrette. The one center planned to provide this service was disbanned early in the Charrette. Most parents made their own provisions or used a federally assisted Tiny Tot Center in the area. This was expected, since part of the reason for setting the $25 per day reimbursement allowance was to enable participants to make their own child care and transportation arrangements. Funding Committee--For all practical purposes, this committee did not function as most of the funds had been committed before the steering committee began their work.46 Persons serving on the steering committee spent considerable time in planning the charrette. It was not uncommon to find some members meeting two and three times a week. Steering committee meetings were typically held every Thursday evening, but there were other meetings involving site selection, planning the regular steering committee meetings, and committee work. The day that the charrette started the Charrette Steering Committee ceased to exist; its purpose had been fulfilled. The Charrette The design of a charrette is based on three essential elements; (1) the variety of people involved, (2) the amount of time scheduled for activities, and (3) the activities planned for the pe0ple and time available. Because charrette is a dynamic 45Ibid., pp. 9—10 53 process, its design must be flexible enough to allow for day-to-day decisions which reflect what has transpired in the preceding activities. This means that much of the design of daily activities must wait until the actual charrette is in progress and it is possible to assess what is happening in the various discussion groups. It is important, however, to emphasize that all decisions are guided by the overall goals of the charrette. The Des Moines Educational Charrette was scheduled for ten days and evenings, April 13 through 23, with Sunday, April 18, as a day off. Daytime sessions were scheduled from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with flite-type lunches being served to charrette participants at the meeting site. Evening meetings were scheduled from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The ten-day length of the charrette was recommended to the Charrette Steering Committee by the coordinators for two basic reasons: 1. The ten full days seemed to allow enough time for Charrette participants to explore the areas of concern and come up with proposals for the development of their schools and communities and yet avoid the marked fatigue reported in some Charrettes which had been held for up to fourteen days. 2. The cost of a Charrette of ten days length fell within the amount of monies available to the Charrette at the time this decision was made. As the Chairette progressed, several adjustments were made. 6 Consultants, discussion leaders, recorders, and graphic interpreters were brought together a day before the charrette began so that they would have some time to become familiar with one another 46Ibid., p. 11. 54 and with the roles they were to assume during the charrette. For consultants, the April 12 meeting was their first opportunity to become acquainted with one another and with some of the background of the Des'Moines Charrette. Discussion leaders, on the other hand, had previously been involved in a one-day workshop to assist them in preparing for their role in the charrette. Participation in the Des Moines Charrette reflected a wide range of interests, talents, and viewpoints which are necessary to promote creative interaction between the clients and those who serve them. The participants fell into the following categories: 1. Community residents: a. b. C. Eighty full-time participants from the four target area communities. Twelve full-time participants from the community- at-large. Residents who attended evening meetings but were not involved in.the daytime meetings. 2. Representative of agencies, governmental units, and organizations which are involved in decisions affecting these neighborhood and/or in providing services. 3. Supportive staff: e. Seven consultants, including the contracted architects for the two projects. Seven discussion leaders, selected from community residents. Seven recorders. Seven graphic interpreters-~people with architectual background who prepared graphic materials to use in representing ideas formulated by the Charrette Two Charrette coordinators.l'7 Prior to the beginning of the charrette, two eight-man developmental teams, consisting of teachers, principals, and supervisors from the Des Moines Public Schools, consultants from the 47Ibid., p. 14. 55 Polk County Board of Education, and staff members from.Drake University, had been identified and given the task of developing educational specifications based on directions given by charrette participants. Most of these team members were full-time participants during the charrette. During the charrette, two community residents were added to each development team at the insistence of community representatives. There had been a long standing concern that the viewpoints of the community residents were lacking on the developmental team. Leaders of the community definitely felt that "community spokesmen" were needed in order for residents to have confidence that what they were saying in charrette would be reflected in specifications to be prepared by these teams. Since charrette sought to involve community intensively over a relatively short period of time, and also attempted to involve as many community residents as possible, two basic types of meetings were scheduled. Daytime meetings, held at the Knights of Columbus Hall, consisted of study groups which met from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily. These meetings were open to everyone; however, they were attended primarily by those people who participated in charrette full-time and who had the responsibility of representing either the community or their employer in the study and planning processes. Evening meetings, held at Irving Junior High School for the Nash- Kirkwood project, and at the Knights of Columbus for the Bird- Grant project, were designed to involve greater numbers of the com- munity. During these meetings, the various study groups reported on their progress and solicited the reactions and suggestions of 56 community members who did not take part in the daytime activities as well as reactions from daytime participants who were working in other groups. Actually, evening meetings had limited success in getting additional community residents involved in planning for the new schools. Daytime meetings were organized around four major topic areas: 1. Educational programs, 2. Educational facilities, 3. School-community programs, and 4. Community development. All charrette participants were assigned to a discussion group which was scheduled to spend a day-and-a-half in each of the four topic areas. Each discussion group was assisted by a team consisting of: Discussion leader: community resident--to assist the group in communicating with each other and the consultants. Consultant: to provide professional, technical assistance to the discussion groups. Recorder: to summarize and record the progress of discussion groups. Graphic Interpreter: to produce graphic materials to summarize ideas and plans. These materials were also used for communicating with evening participants. This team was "stationary", which meant that each team worked with four different discussion groups, and each discussion group. worked with a different team in each of the four major tOpic areas. 57 The rotation of all discussion groups through the four topic areas, each with its stationary team, provided an opportunity for all participants to explore all areas being considered in charrette. The stationary team, since it assisted all groups in their discussion, was able to identify common themes and to expand the discussion of succeeding groups, the groups discussions had a cumulative effect. This rotation format encouraged participants to see the very real inter-relationship between the four topic areas and encouraged them to take a comprehensive view of the development of a new school facility and program. The fact that comprehensive views were developed and the inter-relationships recognized became evident as groups progressed through the rotation cycle. Both participants and team members indicated that discussion in previous groups had "covered" much of the territory which was to be discussed in the other discussion groups. As a result, only one day was spent in the fourth phase of the rotation cycle. Following the rotation through the four discussion groups, participants were given a chance of stating which topic area they would like to work in during the remainder of the charrette. A large majority chose Educational Facilities and Educational Programs. Because of the great similarity in matters of concern and the smaller numbers of residents wanting to continue working the topic areas, the Community Deve10pment and School-Community Program groups were combined. As an attempt is made to describe the sequence and design of charrette activities, there may be a failure to also communicate the movement of events within this overall design. As the need 58 arose or was felt, discussion groups were combined, sub-groups were established, caucuses regarding citizen or staff concerns, i.e., citizen members on the developmental teams, were held and participants changed work groups (temporarily most of the time) to become involved in duscussions of prime concern to them. The most notable example was a discussion group of Nash and Kirkwood residents who worked with a consultant to bring into the open and discuss racial issues confronting these two communities which.were forced into a relationship with one another by the school building program. At other times a meeting of all charrette members would be held because the coordinators had organizational matters to discuss with the group or the citizens themselves had business to conduct, such as the election of a post-charrette committee to continue the develOpment and implementation of charrette proposals. Evening meetings. Evening meetings, open public forums, were begun on April 14 and were scheduled for each evening through April 23. During the course of the charrette the starting of these meetings was switched from 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The general format of these meetings consisted of having representatives, usually community residents, report on the work of their groups to the remainder of the charrette participants and to community residents able to make only evening meetings. These general reports made it possible for additional community people to learn about what their representatives were doing in charrette and to provide feedback to them. Two of the evening meetings were used for the presentation of 59 charrette proposals to juries made up primarily of administrators and/or chief officers of the agencies or organizations related to the prOposals being presented. Juries. Juries served the purpose of enabling charrette participants to test the economic and political feasibility of their thinking and to use an open public forum for gaining commitment to their goals. A jury consisting mostly of public service agency personnel to consider the Community Development proposals was held the evening of Tuesday, April 20. A second jury consisting of school administrators and school board members was held on Thursday, April 22. A final report back to the communities had been scheduled for Friday evening, April 23; however, this meeting was cancelled for a number of reasons. Following the jury sessions there were no basic changes made in charrette proposals and another report of the same proposals would have been anti-climatic. It was also evident to charrette participants and staff that the people for whom the last meeting was intended were among the 300 or more peOple who attended the jury meetings. The charrette finale. The last event of the charrette was an informal social gathering in one of Des Moines' restaurants, arranged by some charrette participants. It remained to be seen whether a very tired group of people who had been together for ten days would come back together after being able to go home and start unwinding. The turnout was good. There were blacks and whites, professional and 60 non-professional, who brought their spouses. People who had not been involved in the process of getting to know one another for ten days were now present. The familiar confines and environment of charrette were gone, the interaction more tentative, but they were there and there was interaction! Charrette Outcomes Charrettes produce few "finished products!" After guidelines, desires, and values had been expressed by Des Moines Charrette participants, much work remained and still remains for the communities and those people who have the responsibility and training to build the programs and facilities called for. Consequently, a report of outcomes which can be vividly and precisely described at this time or which have been "wrapped up and delivered" is not likely to reflect the quantity and quality of useful work produced in a charrette. The charrette has produced an assessment of needs, an evaluation of current activities, and a series of value decisions which form the basis and the beginning of activities for improving education and life in these communities. Evidence that a charrette should be viewed as a contributing event in the development of schools and educational programs is provided in the Educational Facilities Laboratories Report of the Baltimore Dunbar Charrette. The conclusion reached was that "Bringing together professional planner, architects, committee members, and the various bureaucratic agencies involved in school planning in an intensive day and night effort to establish the basic (program, spirit, and preliminary design outline for a school is no 61 substitute for the long professional planning necessary for a superior school building. But it did, in this instance, provide basic inputs for design, and it did permit the various elements in the community to have considerable positive influence in the "48 Much of what was design of the building which will result. accomplished at charrette has set the stage for specific, more reportable progress in the months to come. What came out of the Des Moines Charrette can best be communicated by presenting: l. The Statement of the Educational Philosophy, 2. Educational Goals, 3. Educational Proposals, 4. Community Development Pr0posals, 5. Community-School Program Proposals, and 6. The Community Advisory Council. Statement of educational philosophy. Bird-Grant and Nash- Kirkwood are conceived as community resources leading toward the liberation of the individual person and of the community so that members can function cooperatively and creatively as they strive for individual and community development. These resources shall serve pre-school children, school-age children, adults, and senior citizens. A community advisory group, in collaboration with the Board of Education and professional staff, shall give direction in areas of program, personnel, and use of facilities. Not only will 48Kohn, pp. cit., p. 20. 62 specific services be provided, but the intent and structure of the community school shall serve as a catalyst as the community works to satisfy its interests, needs, and aspirations. The school, therefore, as one of the focal points of community life, must conceive itself as serving, in the broadest sense, this community through instructive health and recreational programs for all ages. The school also brings to its people the skills, knowledge, and enrichment which aid the individual in reaching his fullest human potential. Within this philosophy of school-community relationships, the school shall develop a program which exhibits a belief in the dignity and worth of each child. Thus, the school will be a center where the program and activities will be structured to provide for the daily success and growth of all students, including those whose mental, physical, or emotional handicaps may require special attention. The community school must build upon the richness of the child's communal experience and heritage. It must guide the child to appreciate the positive values which surround him and lead him to develop his own values. His style and rate of learning must be considered in order to design and personalize steps in his learning. Likewise, the school shall provide opportunities for each child to develop talents, cultural awareness, and economic competencies to the extent of his potential. In order to become aware of himself, his relation to others, and society, the child should be free to ecplore those areas which make him productive in relating to society and to himself. 63 Believing that there must be a concern for the total well- being of the child whose physical and emotional development must not be separated from'his intellectual development, we must incorporate continuous counseling and health services with instruction to provide an optimal climate for learning. Educational goals. As expressed in the philosophy, charrette participants conceived the Bird-Grant and Nash-Kirkwood replacement schools to be a resource center serving the entire community by providing educational, recreational, and health programs that would meet the needs of the community and satisfy the interests of all residents regardless of age. The physical structures were to be more than buildings for elementary age children. They were to be community school facilities, offering programs that would be available day and night the year round, responsive to the desires of the community, and contribute to the liberation of the individual. The following goals were identified as those which the school and its staff should continuously strive to meet: 1. Provide activities in which the school, community and other agencies work together for the common good in areas of education, recreation, health, and cultural pursuits. 2. Be an exemplary school, always sensitive to the real needs of the community as voiced by residents living in the area. 3. Establish a system.af two-way communication and cooperation through an advisory council that works with members of the community, teachers, administrators, representatives of the school board and other local agencies. 4. Serve people of all ages through an extended school day and year. Offer an educational program of such quality that the school will serve as a magnetic school which attracts students from the total district. Create, implement, and continue a child-centered curriculum which insures the development of academic skills, positive self-concept, and social intelligence. Educationalgproposals. 1. The administration will seek the advice of Community Advisory Council in the selection of applicants from voluntary lists of staff. All school-related personnel must be prepared to work with all children and the community harmoniously and with understanding. There should be no report cards in the new schools. Parent-teacher conferences should be held four or more times per year. Unless or until culturally fair achievement and intelligence tests are develOped, standardized tests should not be used in schools where students may be adversely affected. The threat of retention should be stopped. The school grade is only a place. Instruction should be individualized to take care of individual differences. The educational program should be designed around a child-centered curriculum instead of today's subject-centered curriculum. Special programs of instruction should be available to all members of the community. Children with special needs should, whenever possible, be placed in the regular school setting to avoid further isolation. Give attention to early childhood educational training. 49Link, 9p. cit., p. 21. 65 10. Construct a facility to accommodate educational and community programs conducive to enrichment of the lives of the entire community. Community development proposals. 1. Establish a liaison (ombudsman) to facilitate communication between the community and existing agencies. 2. Provide extensive and frequent transportation to community programs for all residents. 3. Develop adequate library and multi-media facilities. 4. Develop mutual understanding and interaction between police and community. 5. Create appropriate facilities such as gyms, parks, lighted ball fields, to assist all parents in rearing their children. More important, seek services that will help children develop physically as well as mentally. 6. Establish a relationship with existing agencies requesting them to examine and reorganize their priorities to provide physical health services, mental health services, and leisure time outlets in an attempt to meet the needs as expressed by the community. 7. Establish a committee of ten with a chairman to be responsible for investigating and getting commitment of funds, staff, and/or services for all community projects. (Scholarships, Goals of Charrette '71, etc.) 8. Establish a neighborhood office of the Iowa State Employment to meet the needs of the community. 9. Extend service of the United Way and other social agencies into the community for food, clothing, and other needglso they are available in the neighborhoods. 501bid., p. 22. 51Ibid., p. 24. 66 Communityrschool program proposals. The concept of a community-school was thoroughly explored in the charrette although few formalized prOposals were developed. The community indicated that schools typically have not been viewed as structures serving community needs, but rather as facilities whose primary purposes has been to transmit knowledge. Charrette participants defined a school that would be a community facility providing educational programs, recreational opportunities, and social services that would meet the needs of all age groups in the community. They envisoned a school which actively projected itself into the life of the community and which responded to the realities of that community. In addition to references to providing child care service for residents from infants to pre-school and programs of continuing education, tw0'we11-developed proposals emerged from the discussion regarding community-school programs. They were: 1. Each new school shall have a Resident Advisory Council to assist the administration in carrying out community-school programming so that ongoing community needs and interests will be reflected in the services which are provided in the school complex. 2. The community should communicate with the school and other local agencies through an advisory council.52 These proposals show a definite concern and intent that the community become active and continuing partners in building a responsive school--a true community school. It was evident that they were more interested in exploring and developing a structure and mechanism which would allow’for this continuing influence than 521bid., p. 22. 67 they were in defining a number of specific programs. An underlying assumption was that responsive programming would result from a solid basis of influence. Community Advisory Council. One of the more significant events of the charrette was the development of a Community Advisory Council, composed of five members from each of the four elementary attendance areas of Bird, Grant, Nash, and Kirkwood. The council was organized for the purpose of supervising post-charrette activities and to see that goals of the charrette were achieved. In addition, the council was also charged with seeing that community problems of the future were identified and resolved if at all possible. An election was held April 22, 1971 after all charrette participants had an opportunity to volunteer as candidates to serve on the Community Advisory Council. Voting was supervised by charrette recorders and ballots were counted by one representative from each of the four schools. The charrette participants elected twenty peOple to the first Bird-Grant and Nash-Kirkwood Community Advisory Council. The charrette authorized and charged the newly elected Community Advisory Council to work in behalf of the community until the two new replacement schools were opened and operating, and until an Advisory Council for each of the new schools would be elected sometime in 1972. Summary It would be an unfortunate mistake to view the charrette as a culminating event. Rather, there are compulsive reasons to 68 view it as a beginning. The pathology of problems standing in the way to improved education and life conditions in these communities quickly dispenses any notion that any single event, no matter how intensive and comprehensive, can, by itself, affect these problems in a lasting way. The charrette was a beginning in the development of potential partnerships within the communities and between the communities and the institutions which serve them. Institutions must continue to work with communities to further define and make operational those goals established in charrette lest the commu- nities feel they have said all that needs to be said, done all they need to do, and now just have to sit back and wait for things to happen. Likewise, the communities must continue to forge partnerships with institutions important to the accomplishment of their goals lest these institutions fail to take seriously the community's desires and their ability to work constructively toward these purposes. It behooves the Des Muines community to view the charrette as an initial investment which must be nurtured, for in numerous ways the larger community shares in the pathology of those problems being faced in the inner-city community. The charrette process focused on problems created by our past failures. Des Moines support of these communities' efforts to help themselves must be forthcoming if we value for others what we value for ourselves--good education, safe neighborhoods, places to play, a chance to work, and freedom of choice. These were charrette themes. To nurture the investment in charrette, there will be additional costs in terms of time, energy, and money. It is also important to realize that a 69 failure to nurture the investment made in charrette will also be costly to the aSpirations of people and their communities. Summary of Chapter III The above section has presented an indepth presentation of Charrette '71 by; (l) reviewing the background and the objectives of Charrette '71; (2) explaining the organizational structure of Charrette '71; (3) reporting in detail, the design and the procedures used in Charrette '71; and (4) reviewed some of the general outcomes of Charrette '71. Chapter IV will cite the methodology, descriptions and presentation of data. CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION AND PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction In this chapter the writer describes the procedure used in gathering data and explains the instruments employed and its admini- stration. The first instrument (Appendix A) is a modification of an instrument used and designed by the United States Office of Education to evaluate charrettes. This instrument was used in the attempt to evaluatewCharrette '71 at the end of its duration (April, 1971) by gathering data that reflected; (l) the role of the individual in Charrette '71, (2) the general reactions to the charrette, and (3) the relationship between the school and the community. The other instrument (Appendix B) was designed by the writer with assistance from a researcher in the Research and Evaluation Department of the Louisville Board of Education. This instrument was used to evaluate Charrette '71 eighteen months later (October, 1972) by gathering data that reflected; (l) the general reaction to Charrette '71, and (2) the relationships between the school and the community. Because of suspected weaknesses in the U.S.O.E. evaluation instrument, the second instrument was changed significantly, making comparisons based on the two sets of data difficult at best. 70 71 In spite of that difficulty, the last section of this chapter is devoted to comparing the data from.the two instruments used to determine if any changes have occurred from.the end of Charrette '71 (April, 1971) to eighteen months later (October, 1972). The areas of comparison are; (1) the general reactions to Charrette '71, and (2) relationships between school and com- munity. Evaluation at the End of Charrette '71 To gain some insights as to how the participants of Charrette '71 perceived the charrette at the end of its duration a questionnaire was administered to the participants on April 28, 1971, the last day of Charrette '71. The questionnaire was administered by the discussion leaders in each group, (see Chapter III for explanation of discussion leader and groups) and picked up by the discussion leader in the next group. There were 155 full-time charrette participants that registered on the first day of charrette (April 13, 1971). However, by the last day, the day the questionnaire was administered, most of the "other" (agencies and individuals other than the Des Moines Public School System and community resident participants) had dropped out of the charrette. As a result only 100 questionnaires were distributed. Alllnnzfour were returned which left a total of 96 responses. The questionnaire contains three open-ended questions and fifteen closed questions. 72 The role of the individual in Charrette '71. Two questions in the original set dealt with the role of individuals in Charrette '71. These are shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. It appears that it is safe to conclude that as a result of the charrette the participants perceived that they were much more aware of community and educational problems than before. An interesting observation is that one person indicated that as a result of the charrette he (or she) was less interested in community and educational problems than before. It also appears that most of the participants (92%) were pleased with their personal accomplishments in the charrette. General reactions to Charrette '71. Tables 4.3 through 4.9 present summaries of data obtained for selected questions indicating general reactions to Charrette '71. It appears that the participants were generally satisfied with Charrette '71. They appeared to be content with; (1) how the charrette worked, (2) the educational programs that were proposed, (3) the way the community was represented, (4) the manner in which the charrette was conducted, (5) their chance to actually be involved in discussions rather than simply listening to expert lectures, and (6) the degree that the charrette changed their feelings about other people and their beliefs. There were some indications of dissatisfaction concerning the lack of active participation from the local agencies power structure. It appeared that most of the agency representatives in the charrette were not decision makers. There was also an indication of some skepticism concerning the manner in which the charrette participants were selected i.e., "it was a phony set up". 73 Table 4.1 How did taking part in the charrette affect you interest in community and educational problems? Did you feel more interested, less interested, or about the same as before? 3 Number Percent More Interested Than Before 85 89 Less Interested Than Before 1 l About the Same As Before 9 10 Total 95 100 Table 4.2 How satisfied are you with what you accomplished in the charrette? Number Percent Complete Satisfied 42 46 Fairly Satisfied 42 46 Fairly Dissatisfied 7 8 Completely Dissatisfied 0 O Total 91 100 74 Table 4.3 The idea of the charrette is that everyone can have a voice in what is going on. How well do you think the charrette worked? i- Number Percent Very Well 66 69 Fairly Well 28 29 Not Very Well 2 2 Not Well At All 0 0 Total 96 100 Table 4.4 How satisfied are you with the educational programs proposed for the school that will be in the building? Number Percent Completely Satisfied 53, 58 Fairly Satisfied 37 4O Fairly Dissatisfied l 1 Completely Dissatisfied l l Total 92 100 75 Table 4.5 How satisfied are you with the way the community was represented at the charrette? ==an Number Percent Completely Satisfied 39 41 Fairly Satisfied 44 46 Fairly Dissatisfied 8 8 Completely Dissatisfied 4 5 Total 92 100 Comments that were mentioned most frequently were: 1. Not a wide enough spectrum of representation from the community. 2. No one outside of the charrette cared. 3. Everyone who wanted to be here had the opportunity. Table 4.6 I feel that our group in the charrette paid more attention to people like me. NUmber Percent Agree 14 16 Disagree 73 84 Total 87 100 76 Table 4.7 I don't think our group had enough information from.the experts and consultants. ======== Number Percent Agree 14 16 Disagree 73 84 Total 87 100 Table 4.8 Most of us have atteded meetings where we sat and listened while either a speaker or a panel of experts did most of the talking. A. Have you attended a meeting like that? Number Percent Yes 59 63 No 34 37 Total 93 100 B. How does the charrette compare with other meetings that you have attended? Better 76 83 About the Same 12 13 Not As Good 3 I_____ Total 91 100 If you think the charrette was entirely different from other meetings you have attended, please explain: 77 Some representative responses were: 1. Little people won't get what they need through games of charrette. It was a phony set up. Community people may hot be "experts" on education but they spoke with knowledge of the needs of students. PeOple in the charrette had the same selfish aims you see in all meetings. We had to listen to each other, and often through the shouting and profanity, we were saying the same things. I was able to talk and listen to people I normally have no contact with. The charrette was just a mingling of politics and make- believe--a gimmick which will backfire at you. Table 4.9 Do you feel that the charrette changed your feelings about other people and their beliefs? =I ,= Number Percent Very Much 43 46 Some 38 41 Not Very Much 7 7 Not At All 5 4 Total 93 100 78 Relationship between school and community. The following tables indicate perceptions of Charrette '71 participants regarding the community. The data revealed that at the beginning of the charrette the relationships between school and community was very low. Much distrust, suspicion and general skepticism permeated any relation~ ships that might have existed between these two groups. After the Charrette was over there appeared to be a healthy relationship shared about each other. It appeared that a healthy, constructive and quite productive relationship had emerged from Charrette '71. However, some continued skepticism is shown by the fact that 84 percent of the participants felt that "the community will have to be a watchdog to be sure that the charrette work does not go down the drain". Table 4.10 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that the establishment didn't really care what folks like me thought. Number Percent Agree 49 53 Disagree 43 47 Total 92 100 79 Table 4.11 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that we were just there to rubber stamp something that had already been planned. W 31‘ m Number Percent Agree 29 33 Disagree 62 67 Total 91 100 Table 4.12 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that the community people would have a chance to make some real improvements in education for the children. ‘It - , m Number Percent Agree 79 89 Disagree 10 11 Total 89 100 80 Table 4.13 When I first came to the charrette, I felt that it would end up with the establishment running things. = _=====: Number Percent Agree 37 46 Disagree 44 54 Total 81 100 Table 4.14 After the charrette was over, I felt that the establishment didn't really care what folks like me thought. __‘= m Number Percent Agree 9 10 Disagree 8O 90 Total 89 100 Table 4.15 After the charrette was over, I felt that we had been there just to rubber stamp something that had already been planned. Number Percent Agree 9 10 Disagree 79 90 Total 88 100 81 Table 4.16 After the charrette was over, I felt that the community people had had a chance to make some real improvements in education for the children. Number Percent Agree 88 97 Disagree 3 3 Total 91 100 Table 4.17 After the charrette was over, I felt that the establishment had ended up running things. 1:: Number Percent Agree 15 17 Disagree 71 83 Total 86 100 Table 4.18 I feel now that the community will have to be a "watchdog" to be sure the charrette's work doesn't go down the drain. 1 Number Percent Agree 73 84 Disagree 14 16 Total 87 100 82 Charrette '71 Eighteen Months Later--It's Impact on the Community In order to gain some insights concerning the impact of Charrette '71 on the community eighteen months later, the focused interview technique was used. This technique allowed the inter- viewer the freedom to explore reasons and motives and to probe further in directions that were unanticipated. A questionnaire was administered to 27 Charrette '71 participants on October 12th and 13th of 1972. The questionnaire contains five closed questions and eight open-ended questions. Respondents were instructed to feel free to qualify all questions if so desired. Respondents were assured that their responses would be strictly confidential and that no names would be used in reporting data. Respondents were also informed that upon completion of the study the results of the questionnaire, and the entire study will be forwarded to the Des Moines Public School System. General reactions toward Charrette '71. Tables 4el9 through 4.26 present the tabulated responses to questions dealing with general reactions to Charrette '71, looking back a year and a half later. From the data collected it appears that the participants are still pleased and satisfied with Charrette '71. It appears that they do not see the need for another charrette, though many partici- pants indicated that "there needs to be an effective program to prevent the results of this charrette from 'going down the drain'." An interesting note was that 37 percent of the respondents feel that the charrette would retain its effectiveness if it was incorporated into a permanent structure, and 59 percent feel that it would not be as effective. It appears that the success of the 83 charrette was so great that even if it meant continued intense and involved participation many participants were willing to do so. The fact that 59 percent do not believe that a permanent structure would make the charrette more effective does not necessarily mean that they felt that the charrette was ineffective. Most of the comments were simply against any form of rigid structure because structure might tend to defeat the overall concept of charrette. Data reveal that; (1) community involvement, (2) community and school peOple having an opportunity to get acquainted; and (3) shared decision-making between the community and the school were the strong points of the charrette. Data also reveal that a better explanation of the charrette concept was needed at the beginning of Charrette '71 planning stage. It also appears that only "certain" people in the community and the school system really know what is going on. It appears that an overwhelming majority (93%) of the Charrette '71 participants felt that the charrette was a worthwhile experience. It seems very odd that anyone (7%) felt that it would be worthless. The results of the charrette are not a measurement of the experience. In conclusion it appears that most of the participants of Charrette '71 are still satisfied (70%) with the accomplishments of the charrette. It also appears that some of the participants are not satisfied with its accomplishments (30%). 84 Table 4.19 Do you feel that the progress of the charrette recommendations is going according to the schedule agreed upon by the charrette participants? Number Percent Yes 18 67 No _ 7 26 No Opinion 2 7 Total 27 100 Some respondents felt the need to qualify their response. Typical responses are as follows: 1. There is some progress but it appears to be slower than anticipated. 2. In one of the schools yes, and in the other school, no. Table 4.20 Do you feel that the function and the results of the charrette had served its purpose as soon as the recommendations were approved by the participants? Number Percent Yes 8 30 No 19 70 Total 27 100 85 Table 4.21 In your opinion, what are the strong points in the charrette that led to continued involvement in educational planning? - L Typical Responses Community commitment Shared decision-making Voice in policy formation Community and board of education people had an opportunity to get acquainted with each other Attitude of school officials being quite positive at all times Bending over backwards for the most part to help in discussions and prompt action in issues at hand The leadership from the coordinators Dedication of a few people to make the charrette work. .A desperation effort on the part of the board of education to upgrade education A mutual concern of the community and the board of education for the educational program of the schools The formation of the Community Advisory Council 86 Table 4.22 Do you feel that another charrette would help solve some of the problems that were supposed to have been solved in the previous charrette? If yes, how? Nmmber Percent Yes 6 22 No 19 70 Maybe 2 7 Total 27 100 Some typical responses for having another charrette are: 1. At this point another charrette would serve to get more people involved with charrette goals and perhaps strengthen and further these goals. Start all over again. New administration. Let the community in on what is going on. More Black decision makers. The previous charrette and the continued awareness among all the people will bring about better communication among all people involved. At this time we should involve only parents that have children in charrette schools. Typical responses for not have another charrette are: 1. 2. Another charrette would only confuse things more. We need to make this charrette work by; (a) working as a total team, and (b) thinking of children as the most important element in education, rather than the educators. 87 Another charrette is not needed. What is needed is better follow-up on the one we had. We need to build on the results of this one. More work needs to be done with school personnel in establishing a theoretical base for community partici- pation and involvement. Table 4.23 In your opinion, was the charrette a worthwhile experience? Why? Number Percent Yes 25 93 No 2 7 Total 27 100 Typical responses of respondents who thought that the charrette was a worthwhile experience are: 1. I gained a valuable insight with the people and their problems and their everyday living pattern. I talked and met with people that I probably would have never met or known. The charrette brought about an awareness of community feelings about education and hOW'We can work together and solve many of our problems. The community was heard; people are still involved; the process developed better human relations. Mutual concern of the problem and collectively trying to solve these problems. 88 5. It dealt with all ranges of personalities and groups. An input from everyone. 6. It was the most stimulating and exciting experience I have ever been involved in. I felt I had something to contribute. 7. It brought about necessary changes. Broke down tradi- tional educational practices. More respect and trust on the part of both the community and the board of education was evidenced. 8. For once in a lifetime I, as a parent, had the opportunity to express my own opinion and feelings about public schools--to make suggestions and to promote changes. 9. People from all over the city have the same educational goals for their children. Seeing many different agencies working together toward the same goals. The people that I met. Typical responses of respondents who thought that the charrette wasn't a worthwhile experience are: 1. Decisions were already made. 2. The ideas are worthwhile, but the way in which these ideas are carried out aren't. 89 Table 4.24 List some of the ways that you feel the charrette could have been of more use to the overall concept of community involvement. W Typical Response Get more grass-root pe0ple involved. Explain fully the charrette concept to the community The community people datun:knOW'what is really going on; they are simply happy about the new schools There are parents and teachers who were not effected by the charrette; it would have been to our advantage to have gotten these people more involved Table 4.25 Do you feel that the charrette would have been more or less, effective if it had been incorporated into a permanent structure with periodic meetings? Why? := === Number Percent More 10 37 Less 16 59 No Opinion 1 4 Total 27 100 Typical responses of the respondents that felt the charrette would have been more effective if it had been incorporated into a permanent structure are: 1. It would keep interest up more. 90 Different people would be involved and perhaps more knowledge about what is going on and where the charrette is working and where it is failing. Once one loses touch, there is no getting back. After the initial 2 weeks excitment was great but we forget so soon. More community residents need to be aware of the progress so that everyone will understand and believe in the process. Typical responses of the respondents that felt the charrette would not be more effective if it had been incorporated into a permanent structure 81‘83 1. The longer you draw out a structure and have scheduled periodic meetings the less involvement you get. It would defeat the purpose of the charrette. Permanent structure tends to bring about bureaucratic control. The purpose of the charrette was to condense ideas into a period time. After the first week,attendance began to drop off. Too much structure is not good. 91 Table 4.26 Are you satisfied with what was accomplished in the charrette? Number Percent Yes 19 70 No 8 30 Total 27 100 Relationship between school and community. Tables 4.27 through 4.29 present the tabulated responses to questions related to the impact of Charrette '71 on the relationship between school and community. It appears from the data that the relationships between the school is relatively a healthy (though declining) one. The participants feel that the community is still somewhat involved in the decision making process--primari1y through the efforts of the Citizen Advisory Board. It appears that even though the charrette narrowed the communication gap, the gap is widening again because of inadequate follow up procedures. There appears to be a great deal of controversy over the school boundaries that will involve the replacement schools. 92 Table 4.27 In you opinion, is the community still involved in the decision making process of educational problems in the replacement school areas? m m Number Percent Yes 24 89 No 3 11 Total 27 100 Some respondents felt the need to qualify their response. Typical responses are as follows: 1. The Community Advisory Council represents the community and has already been involved in many decisions concerning our schools. 2. The "grass roots" are not informed about what is going on. 3. Not enough people are involved. Table 4.28 In your opinion, did the charrette narrow the communication gap between the community and the board of education? How? Number Percent Yes 18 67 No 7 26 No Opinion 2 7 Total 27 100 93 Some typical positive responses regarding how the communi- cation gap between the community and the board of education are: 1. People in the charrette communities who had never communicated with school and other city officials were given the opportunity to do so and did--and still are vocal and visible. The charrette community has more input in decision making, staff selection, curriculum, etc. Mere sub- communities are forming to study and make recomendations. The board of education listened to us and took under consideration our ideas. The board respects the Charrette Advisory Council's ideas. Yes, it did narrow the gap, however, there is still a segment of the community that is not involved. The board is now ready to listen, but no direct contact has been established. The community and the board discovered that both groups were just people. Being able to say that you have met before opens the door more easily to further discussion and communication. Their recommendations went directly to the board. Representatives have appeared before the board in direct dialogue on charrette issues. Negative comments are: 94 1. Only a few community people are running the show. The board of education is really making all of the decisions. 2. The board of education listened, but I don't see that there is really any communication between the community and the board of education. Table 4.29 If you answer to the above is yes, do you feel that effective communication channels are still present? Number Percent Yes 14 53 No 8 29 No Opinion 5 18 Total 27 100 There were two other questions that dealt directly with the long run effect of Charrette '71. Responses to these questions did not lend themselves to quantification or tabular presentation. They are, therefore, simply presented in statement form, as representing a variety of points of view, attitudes and feelings. In you opinion, what are some of the reasons that a continued positive working relationship between the community and the board of education did not occur? Some typical responses are: 1. The top decision makers of the various agencies involved in the charrette either were not involved or they attended the charrette on a limited basis. As a result many questions involving policy could not adequately be answered. 95 Lack of real commitment on the part of the board of education. The charrette structure was not geared to insure this commitment. Community people were not totally given the opportunity to make important decisions. From.what I have experienced the administration, and not the actual board of education, is working with the community. I question if this is a strong direct line between the board and the community. The Community Advisory Council is not representative of the community. The community does not know what is going on. All of the decisions are made downtown by the board of education. Complete line of communication. With so many people involved the lines of communication are hard to keep tuned in. The reluctance of the board of education to follow the recommendations of the charrette which.was to hire two educational directors instead of one. They seem not to know, or care, how important this role is to achieve the goals that were set by the charrette. Some administrators are fearful of the shared decision- making policy. The community came on too fast and expected too much tOO $0011. 96 What are some of the advantages and disadvantages you perceive will accure as a result of participants declaring their request for the boundaries of the replacement schools to be the same as the previous schools, even though the racial balance that the board of education has adopted does not come close to being a reality? Typical responses are: 1. If a school has good teachers and a good facility I do not think boundaries are that important. Schools will continue to be racially imbalanced. Schools run the risk of not meeting federal requirements concerning involvement. The neighborhood concept. There is a great possibility of the school-communities regressing into their old complacent attitude. NAACP or some other group may force a change before charrette goals have a chance to become a reality. No Black models in the schools. Since 85 percent of the students are Black, this is a very important issue. People in authority positions do not know how to deal with Black children. Typical responses to the advantages of keeping the same boundaries are: 1. It brings about community pride and cohesiveness among the citizens and students. The comparing of achievement scores with other schools will cease if this goal is achieved. These communities would have a new school in their areas which is something that has not happened in the life time of most of the participants. 97 Comparison Between the Ihuiof Charrette '71 (April, 1971) and Charrette '71 Eighteen Months Later (October, 1972): What Changed? The reactions in this section of the study are not based upon testable data. Instead, these reactions are based upon data obtained from two different instruments. Even though the questions from each instrument were catagorized into the two areas of comparison (General Reaction to the Charrette and Relationships Between School and Community), accepted research techniques do not view this method as being empirically sound. Consequently, this section is merely the reactions of the writer's perception. General reactions to Charrette '71. In the opinion of the writer there seems to be some inconsistency between the objective (closed) responses and the subjective (open-ended) responses. However, it appears that the charrette participants were relatively satisfied with Charrette '71 in October of 1972 (eighteen months later) as they were in April of 1971 (as the end of Charrette '71). However, it appears that there has been a noticeable negative change in the way some of the participants felt about Charrette '71 from April, 1971 to October, 1972. Relationship between school and community. Relationships between the school and the community appear to have undergone a number of changes. The relationships vastly improved from the beginning of charrette, until the end of the charrette. However, eighteen months later (October, 1972), it appears that the positive relationships were diminishing. 98 Before and during most of the charrette a high degree of suspicion existed on the part of both school and community parti- cipants. However, through interaction and involvement, people learned to respect and trust each other, and their beliefs as well. Consequently, by the last day of Charrette '71 (April 28, 1971) many of the barriers that previously existed between school and community participants had disappeared. Since the end of Charrette '71 many participants (school and community) have not been collectively involved in school or community matters. There still appears to be a high regard for the way the charrette was conducted and with what was accomplished through this process. It appears that many of the participants are satisfied with the results of the charrette and with the progress of the recommendations that were made. However, data revealed that a small percent of dissenting responses persisted throughout the study. It would appear that, if some type of program dealing with community development and community involvement is not instituted in the near future, positive relationship that were obtained through the charrette may be lost. There is also the risk of cementing many of the previous fears, distrust, and apprehensions to the point that it will be next to impossible to build any positive relationships between community and school people. The high priority that Charrette '71, and its concept of community involvement, enjoyed during the planning and the execution 99 of the charrette has appeared to have deteriorated. It appears that community involvement is only "good" when it benefits the school system. It also appears that the school system does not really want the community to have too much power, because power represents control and control is very threatening to many peOple. However, if effective and total community involvement is really a goal of the school and the community, a department should be established within the school system to insure this goal. This department should have parity with all existing departments within the system. Summary of Chapter IV Chapter IV has presented the results of two attempts to analyze the perceptions of Charrette '71 participants once immediately following the charrette, and again eighteen months later. Chapter V contains the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The assembly of community residents in dialogue groupings with interdisciplinary professionals, students, key public decision-makers, and private industry representatives is crucial to the creativity of a charrette and the creation of new 'working partnership' that bridge old credibility gaps. It is only through the total involvement of all parties that ideas concepts, and value judgments can be confronted, tested, and resolved in public forum. Thus, the Charrette approach lies in sharp contrast to the all too frequent occurrence of polarization of fractions resulting from the development of plans in secrecy. The enthusiasms and imagination of ordinary citizens can succeed in opening up possibilities the experts had not thought of, or had not thought feasible--or in ways of overcoming budgetary and political restraints that had simply been taken for granted. For 'esta- blishment' and community alike the Charrette is, among other things, an extraordinary educational process. Each comes to learn and understand much more about the other than either might otherwise have imagined possible.53 The rapidly changing emphasis on redefining education from the viewpoint of so many conflicting social theorists, the attempt to re-internalize definitions, roles, global views, historical significance, etc., make the serious consideration of methods of coping with the problems very 53'The Schoolhouse in the City", (Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 0-271-619, 1967). 100 101 difficult. Timing also is of high priority. The rapid pace of changing mores, locales, systems of communication all influence the meaning of 'education is a preparation for living'. The methods felt to be the means toward solving problems for preparing the youth of the nation have to be perceived in the clear light of the recognized doubt. Will this work? Will this procedure truly reach the heart of the matter? Will these kinds of programs benefit? Who will make the decisions? Charrette '71 has been one of the attempts to answer many of the above questions and to solve some of the many, many educational problems. Summary A review of the literature pertinent to this study was explored as informational and background material; from which one could acquire a thorough understanding of the charrette process. It also provided a limited history of educational architectural planning along with the history and the evolution of charrettes. The study further included a documented reporting of Charrette '71, which was the name given to the charrette conducted in Des Moines, Iowa, in April of 1971. This study did not attempt to prove whether or not charrettes are effective methods of solving urban educational facilities problems. Instead, the study is; (1) an attempt to evaluate Charrette '71 at the end of its duration (April, 1971), and (2) to attempt to measure the impact of Charrette '71 on the community eighteen months later (October, 1972). Two questionnaires were used to obtain the data. The population of the study was the participants of Charrette '71. Data from Questionnaire A were gathered by administering the 102 questionnaire on the last day of Charrette '71 (April 28, 1971). Data from Questionnaire B were obtained through the use of the focused interview technique in October of 1972. Data were organized, examined and presented. A case study approach was used. Evidence that was presented is applicable to the local setting that was studied and should not be generalized universally. Data used to evaluate Charrette '71 at the end of the charrette was obtained from an instrument selected and administered by the Charrette '71 staff. Comparative reactions are based upon data obtained from two different instruments. Even though the questions from each instrument were catagorized, accepted research techniques do not view this method as being statistically sound. However, certain tentative conclusions are drawn from relationships between general responses over time. Findings and Conclusions At the conclusion of the charrette, the data collected revealed the following attitudes and beliefs on the part of charrette participants. 1. Charrette '71 was successful in allowing everyone to have a say in what went on. 2. Participation in the charrette promoted interest and awareness in community and educational problems. 3. The charrette was perceived to be more favorable than other meetings. 103 Individuals perceptions of their accomplishments through charrette participation was very positive. The community was satisfactorily represented in the charrette. At the beginning of the charrette a high degree of suspicion was revealed on the part of the charrette participants. However, much of this suspicion and distrust had diminished enormously by the last day. Some continued skepticism is shown by the fact that eighty-four percent of the participants felt that "the community will have to be a watchdog to be sure that the charrette work does not go down the drain". The charrette changed feelings about other people and their beliefs. Eighteenmonths later, additional data, collected revealed that these same participants had the following general opinion, attitudes and beliefs about the charrette: 1. The participants are satisfied with the proposed educational program for the new schools. Charrette recommendations are progressing fairly close to schedule. The charrette narrowed the communication gap between the community and the board of education. Many of the respondents feel that effective communication channels are still present. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 104 Most respondents indicated that the most important aspect of the charrette was that people from.all walks of life talked and listened to each other. Most of the respondents were satisfied with what was accomplished in the charrette. Most of the respondents indicated that the charrette would have been less successful if it had been incor- portated into a permanent structure. Practically every respondent felt the need for a better system of follow-up to insure continuity and stability to the program. A stronger commitment from the board of education is needed to insure continued success of the charrette proposed plans. The community is still somewhat involved in the decision- making process--primarily through the efforts of the Citizen Advisory Council. Most of the agency representatives in the charrette were not decision makers. Some participants felt that the board of education was doing them a favor by "letting them be involved in the decision making--or even by listening to them". Most of the Charrette '71 participants are not presently actively involved in school issues. The communication gap is widening again. There was a noticeable inconsistency between objective responses and subjective responses. l6. 17. 105 There was a noticeable negative change in the way participants felt about Charrette '71 from April, 1971 to October, 1972. There appeared to be an absence of an ongoing program, or any plans for one, that would promote and insure community involvement. Based upon the analysis of the findings of this investigation, the following conclusions are presented. They represent, again, the attitudes and beliefs of the Des Moines Charrette participants--not necessarily those of the investigator: 1. 2. Charrette '71 was a successful experience. The participants were satisfied with how the charrette worked. The charrette proved to play an effective and important role in the effort to destroy the great barriers that exist between community people and educators. Perhaps the most important aspect of the charrette is that it was effective in changing peoples' feelings about other peoples' beliefs. There is evidence to conclude that the charrette promoted, perpetuated and cultivated leadership qualities that was embedded in many of the community participants. Generally speaking, the Charrette '71 participants are satisfied with the progress of the charrette recommen- dations. Communication between the community and the board of education improved as a result of the charrette. 106 8. Many of the positive attitudes that resulted from.the charrette are in jeopardy because of inadequate follow- up procedures. 9. Charrette has become a low priority item with the board of education. (October, 1972). 10. Many administrators feel threatened by the increased involvement of community people in decision-making. Summary Reactions and Recommendations The primary and most basic function of public education is to provide quality education for all students. All activities undertaken within the auspices of any public educational system are obligated to reflect this primary function. Any actions contrary to this basic philosophy is not only unethical and hypocritical but grossly dishonest. The role of education and educators and of specific educational programs such as Charrette '71 is not to: provide avenues for social mobility; to provide an atmosphere for building positive and healthy relationships between schools, communities and other social agencies; to change how people feel about each other and their beliefs; to make people like each other; nor other humanistic endeavors--unless these actions are geared to serve as a vehicle for improving the educational achievement of students. This study reported how Charrette '71 participants perceived the success of the charrette. The findings indicated that the participants perceived Charrette '71 as a successful endeavor. However, it is not the intent of the writer to suggest that the 107 charrette was successful in providing a structure of a process to enhance the academic achievement of students--which is the primary function of education. Charrette '71 could very well be the beginning of a process that could do much to insure the types of programs and involvement that is necessary to provide quality education for the students of the charrette areas. Research has shown that inner-city parents want to become involved in the educative process and generally desire good education for their children. These parents in general want better things for their children than they had for themselves.55 The Adams-Morgan Community School Project in Washington, D. C., gives evidence that when parents have a voice in establishing policy in their schools, children achieve more. It is one of the few schools in Washington where pupils' scores on standardized tests rose markedly after the first year of its program. Habitual truants were reported to be back at their desks and vandalism was reported to be a new low. It is clear that the school is now an integral part of the community.56 However, Charrette '71 could be used as another bureaucratic gimmick to appease community and lay peOple; it could also be used as a vehicle to "buy" time. The Report of the National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorder posits that people who are isolated and 55Bernard Berelson and A. S. Burey, Human Behavior, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964). 56Harvard Educational Review, XXXIX, (letter to editor, Adams Morgan School, Winter, 1969), p. 161. 108 powerless to influence the course of their destiny have a desire to destroy the system. Charrette '71 ggnld be used as an approach to pacify the wants needs and frustrations of the charrette community residents, with no actual plans to include shared decision-making. It is widely recognized that many inner-city communities are too disorganized, too experienced and too unschooled to recognize the inferior quality of education they are receiving (except in the very obvious situations). Consequently, many educators and educational systems take advantage of the ignorance of the residents of their communities. They have assigned inexperienced and incompetent teachers to these schools and have allowed the physical plants to deteriorate. They have supported and reinforced the kind of educational system that has been dysfunctional to the welfare of the under privileged members of our society. It is the opinion of the writer that before Charrette '71 (and other charrettes or charrette-like programs) can be qualified a success, certain questions need to be closely examine and answered. An example of some of the types of questions that need to be answered are: 1. Does the charrette process insure the probability of upgrading the educational achievement of students? 2. Is the consensus (democratic) process the best method to approach education? 3. Is the charrette process a real attempt to involve lay citizens or is it another bureaucratic game to "cool" citizens off and to "buy" another period of peace? 109 Do new and attractive buildings contribute towards the upgrading of the educational achievement of students? If so why, and in what ways? Does community involvement insure a better educational system? What degree of community involvement is needed for an effective and successful educational program? When and only when these types of questions are answered will it be safe to conclude that Charrette '71 (and other charrettes or charrette-like programs) can be determined as a way to solve educational problems. Recommendations 1. Central administration should include an assistant superintendent for community development. A partial list of his services could be the following: a. Provide direction, leadership and supervision to a charrette follow-up program. b. Create and further promote community involvement. c. Assist the community in educational endeavors by serving as a technical advisor. d. Develop a program to improve communications and for the dissemination of information to the community. Teachers have more involvement in decision-making. It is important that teachers do not become "caught in the middle", between the community and administration. More black administrators be placed in the replacement schools. 110 The recommendations from.the charrette be incorporated as soon as possible to insure some of the trust gained through the charrette. For example, charrette recommendations call for two educational directors (one for each replacement school). However, only one has been hired, even though money is readily available for both positions. A study be done to compare how teachers, central administrators, agency representatives, and community residents perceive Charrette '71 and its progress. A study be done two years after construction of the replacement schools to evaluate the goals and objectives that resulted from the charrette. The combined issues of trust and power represented themes for responding to community involvement, since many of our constituents have lost faith in school people to serve their interest. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Berelson, Bernard, and Burey, A. 8., Human Behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1964. Campbell, Roland F., Marx, Lucy Ann, and Nystrand, Raphael 0. Education and Urban Renaissance. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. Havighurst, Robert J., and Levine, Daniel. Education in Metropolitan Areas. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Passow, Harry A., (ed.). Urban Education in the 1970's. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1971. Riddick, William. Charrette Processes. York, Pennsylvania: George Shumway, 1971. Shumway, George. Charrette at York, Pennsylvania: Aprilyyl970. York, Pennsylvania: George Shumway, 1971. Visich, Arthur J., and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town in Mess Society. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. Wright, Frank Lloyd. An American Architecture. New York: Horizon Press, 1955. Periodicals and Journals American School and University, Vol. 24, 1952-53. Bailey, James. "The Charrette: A New Vehicle for Citizen Partici- pation", National Urban Coalition's Journal, June-July, 1970. Batchler, Peter. "Citizen Participation in Design", North Carolina Architect, May-June, 1970. Chase, William.W. "Design for Regenerating a City", reprint from American Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. March, 1971. Iowa Architect, Vol. 18, No. 3, July, August, and September, 1971. Petersen, Thor. "Pontiac Human Resources Center--A Differentiated Staffing Approach In An Urban Setting", Michigan School Board Journal, SVIII, No. 2, January, 1972. 112 113 Roseman, Marvin. "Charrette", Indiana Architect, January, 1970. , Marvin. "Charrette: A Real Way to Learn", AIA Journal, July, 1971. Steele, Marilyn. "Humanizing Schools: The Community School Planning Process", Community Education Facilities Planning Journal. Stout, Minard W. "Building Ideas that Save Money", American School and University. Vol. 43, February, 1971. Tonigan, Richard R. "Reduce Planning Time--Have a Charrette", School Management, April, 1972. Williams, Robert D. "The San Francisco Charrette: An Experiment in Community Involvement in Educational Planning", School Review, 1971. Reports and Documents Brubaker, Charles William. "The Charrette Was A Linker", Notes from the Albuquerque Health Charrette. February 27, 1970. Chase, William W. The Charrette: A Process in Perticipative Decision Making or a Means of Co-opting Community Leadership. U. S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1970. Davies, John L. (ed.). Watertown High School; Site Feasibility Study. February, 1971. , John L. Watertown Schools: Needs and Opportunities. March, 1971. Day, C. William. (ed.). Charrette 'Tri-County Educational Involvement'. Ferrer, Terry. The School and Urban Renewal: A.Case Study From New Haven. Library of Congress, Catalog No. 64-16732, October, 1966. Kohn, Sherwood D. Experiment in Planning an Urban High School: The Baltimore Charrette. Library of Congress, Catalog No. 71-106009, November, 1969. Link, Charles, and Brubaker, Donald. Charrette '71, 1971. LouisvillaBoard of Education. CDSS Program. Louisville: Board of Education, 1971. Louisvilkaand Jefferson County Planning Commission, Neighborhood Analysis--Inventory of Data, Summer, 1970. 114 Mielke, William.E. Charrette First Report, September 18, 1970. Ollie, Leslie. An Evaluation--Study of Selected Agpects of the Community Education Program in Benton Harbor; Michigan. State Human Resources Council, Lansing, Michigan, July, 8, 1969. Pontiac, Michigan Board of Education. Human Resources Center: An Innovation in Education, 1971. Sturegeon Valley Housing Cooperative Limited. Charrette Report: The Development of a Cooperative Housing Community, 1970. Temple University. "The Temple University--North Philadelphia Charrette", March, 1970. Task Force on Urban Education. Urban School Crisis. National School Public Relations Association, January 7, 1970. The Rock Creek Charrette Committee. The Oregon.Charrette: Inter- facing a New'City and a Community College. Thomasville City Schools. Charrette-a Report, November, 1969. Tuuie, Hoan. (ed.). Watertown Charrette, August, 1970. United States Office of Education. Charrette. Washington, D. C., 1971. United States Government Printing Office. 1970 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics, United States Summary, Washington, D. C., December, 1971. United States Government Printing Office. 1970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants, United States Summary, Washington, D. C., December, 1971. United States Government Printing Office. 1970 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, United States Summary, Washington, D. C., December, 1971. United States Government Printing Office. The Schoolhouse in the City. 0-271-619. Washington, D. C., 1967. United States Office of Economic Opportunity. The Theoryyand the Fact. Washington, D. C., 1969. Vogelsang, Fred. The Tacoma Charrette. The Continuing Charrette, Washington, D. C., 1969. Watertown Charrette Activity: Goals. Charrette Executive Committee, June, 1970. 115 Wooten, P. Report of Community Charrette; East New York Educational ngplex, April, 1971. Newspapers, Bulletins and Pamphlets Bonfigilio, Lois. "The Charrette at Work", Greenwich Village School Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 2., April, 1971. Buder, Leonard. "New School Plan in East New Yerk". New York Times. July 1, 1971. Community News Service, Inc. "East New Yorkers Look at Educational Complex Plan with Mixture of Skepticism and Hope", June 4, 1971. Harvard Educational Review, XXXIX, Winter, 1969. Keidel, Janilee. "An Extraordinary Way to Plan a School". Baltimore Sunday Sun,‘March 10, 1969. Lacks, Roshyn. "Democracy and Parents: Geshrai on a Charrette". The Village Voice, October 29, 1970. Morris, Hugh. "New Planning Process: Charrette is adopted". Greenwich Village School Bulletin, VI, No. 1, February 4, 1971. Mossman, Alan. Charrette: A New Tool For Integrated Social and Physical Planning. 140 Upper Parliment Street, Liverpool, England. LS7LG, February 2, 1972. Samios, Georgia. "New School Includes Day-Care, Legal Aid". Baltimore News American, June 27, 1971. The Russel Community News, I, No. 3. Louisville, Kentucky, February, lS-March 15, 1972. Vogelsang, Fred. "Charrette". The Washington Post, Potomac Supplement Sunday, December 7, 1969. Watertown Press. "Hundreds of Residents in Charrette", May 14, 1970. Watertown Press. "Charrette Group to Hear U. S. Education Speaker". January 16, 1970. Watertown Sun. "TMM's Aid Plan for Charrette". April 23, 1970. Unpublished Materials Coleman. James M. "A Study of the Intergroup Relations Specialist and Sources of Intergroup Conflict In An Urban School District". Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. 116 De Salvo, Albert. "The Charrette Process in Planning". Paper submitted for Planning Theory Seminar, University of , Department of City and Regional Planning. April 29, 1969. Mossman, Alan. "Charrette - Volume One: Words. Unpublished Bachelor of Architecture Dissertation, University of LiverpooL School of Architecture, 1972. Williams, Everett Joseph. "A Case Study of A Response To An Urban Crisis: The Pontiac Human Resources Center". Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Handbooks Department of Legislative Reference, City of Baltimore. Baltimore Municipal Handbook - 1969, 1969. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CHARRETTE QUESTIONNAIRE 1. The idea of the Charrette is that everyone can have a voice in what is going on. How well do you think the Charrette worked? (Please check one answer.) Very well Fairly well Not very well Not well at all 2. How did taking part in the Charrette affect your interest in community and educational problems? Did you feel more inter- ested, less interested, or about the same as before? More interested than before Less interested than before About the same as before 3. How satisfied are you with what you accomplished in the Charrette? Completely satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied 118 119 4. How satisfied are you with the educational programs proposed for the school that will be in the building? Completely satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied 5. How satisfied are you with the way the community was represented at the Charrette? Completely satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied Comment if you wish: The following statements might have been made by participants during the Charrette. Please check whether you agree or disagree with the statements. 6. When I first came to the Charrette, I felt that the establishment didn't really care what folks like me thought. Agree ._____ Disagree 7. When I first came to the Charrette, I felt that we were just there to rubber stamp something that had already been planned. Agree Disagree 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 120 When I first came to the Charrette, I felt that the community people would have a chance to make some real improvements in education for the children. Agree ______ Disagree When I first came to the Charrette, I felt that it would end up with the establishment running things. Agree ______ Disagree After the Charrette was over, I felt that the establishment didn't really care what folks like me thought. Agree _____ Disagree After the Charrette was over, I felt that we had been there just to rubber stamp something that had already been planned. Agree ______ Disagree After the Charrette was over, I felt that the community people had had a chance to make some real improvements in education for the children. Agree Disagree After the Charrette was over, I felt that the establishment had ended up running things. Agree ______ Disagree I feel now that the community will have to be a "watchdog" to be sure the Charrette's work doesn't go down the drain. Agree ______ Disagree I feel that our group in the Charrette paid more attention to the experts than to people like me. Agree Disagree l6. 17. 18. 121 I don't think our group had enough information from the experts and consultants. Agree ______ Disagree Now, just a few final questions: Most of us have attended meetings where we sat and listened while either a speaker or a panel of experts did most of the talking. a. Have you attended a meeting like that? Yes No b. How does the Charrette compare with other meetings that you have attended? Better About the same Not as good If you think the Charrette was entirely different from other meetings you have attended, please explain: Do you feel that the Charrette changed your feelings about other people and their beliefs? Very much Some Not very much Not at all Please explain: APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Do you feel that the progress of the charrette recommendations is going according to the schedule agreed upon by the charrette participants? Yes No No Opinion In your Opinion, is the community still involved in the decision making process of educational problems in the replacement school areas? Yes No No Opinion Do you feel that the function and the results of the charrette had served its purpose as soon as the recommendations were approved by the participants? Yes No No Opinion In your opinion, did the charrette narrow the communication gap between the community and the board of education? How? If your answer to question 4 is yes, do you feel that effective communication channels are still present? Yes No No Opinion d22 10. 123 In your opinion, what are the strong points in the charrette that led to continued community involvement in educational planning? In your opinion, what are some of the reasons that a continued positive working relationship between the community and the board of education did not occur? Do you feel that another charrette would help solve some of the problems that were supposed to be solved in the previous charrette? How? In your opinion, was the charrette a worthwhile experience? Why? List some of the ways that you feel the charrette could have been of more use to the overall concept of community involvement. ll. 12. 13. 124 Do you feel that the charrette would have more, or less, effective if it had been incorporated into a permenent structure with periodic meetings? Why? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages you perceive will accrue as a result of participants declaring their request for the boundaries of the replacement schools to be the same as the previous schools, even though the racial balance that the board of education has adopted does not come close to being a reality? Are you satisfied with what was accomplished in the charrette? Yes No No Opinion or me COMMUNITY COMMUNITY PR OCRAMs"——' WPLEMEN‘I’ATION TOTAL MELOPMENT r-O 0 n —‘~. PLANNWIG :0 NEEDS “‘0 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 8: FACILITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL BOARD REVIEW COMMUNITY . APPROVAL CHARRETTE FOLLOW-UP -Developmental Teams -Identify Funding -Community Monitoring of DeveIOpmental Teams -On-Going Evaluation CHARRETTE ~®®®® STEERING COMMITTEE -Sites Selected -Charrette Planned NEW SCHOOL BOND ISSUE PASSED EDUCATIONAL 8: COMMUNITY NEEDS 126 HOuoon Ouotrmum 05 mo megaoueonoumou I nozuousomosmou >oaomo \ Jl/ upZudueomoumou Houcochocrom 0333355“; .. oo>3oucoooumos goosom oummmoHOMOOm ouumwofionosnum 1 _ 30330.; unogoa uncuoosoo .mueoomu om 53:82:00 No >333: mH>HH