School Facilities Survey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DCCUMENT RESUME ED 036 072 EE 002 618 AUTHOR SAUNDERS, HARRY E. TITLE SCHOOL FACILITIES SUEVEY., INSTITUTION PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, PA. PUB DATE MAR 65 NOTE 240P.; A REPORT PRESENTED TO THESUPERINTENDENT CF SCHOOLS AND THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONOF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENN. AVAILABLE FROM PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, PARKWAYAT 21ST, PHILADELPHIA, PENN. 19103 EDRS PRICE EDRS PRICE MF-$1.00 EC NOT AVAILABLEFROM EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *EDUCAIICNAI ADMINISTRATION, EDUCATIONALFINANCE, EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES, EDUCATIONALPOLICY, ENROLLMENT TRENDS, *FACILITY CASE STUDIES,*FACIIITY EXPANSION, *FACILITY REQUIREMENTS,SCHOOL EXPANSION, *SCHOOL PLANNING ABSTRACT THIS SURVEY OF FACILITY NEEDSINCLUDES AN EVALUATION OF STAFF ORGANIZATION AND OPERATINGPROCEDURES FOR THE PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC SCHCO.L DISTRICT. THE EDUCATIONALPOLICIES ADOPTED BY THE PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION RELATINGTO SCHOOL FACILITIES ARE DISCUSSED, AND EXISTING SITES ANDBUILDINGS, POPULATION ENROLLMENT DATA, AND FINANCIAL DATA ARE REVIEWED.BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION, STATEMENTS CCNCERNING NEW SCHOOL ANDEXISTING SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS ARE PRESENTED; SPECIAL ATTENTION ISGIVEN TO PRE-SCHOOL, KINDERGARTEN, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES.THE ORGANIZATION, OBJECTIVES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE SCHOOLFACILITIES DIVISION ARE DISCUSSED, AND RECOMMENDATIONS CCNCERNINGPOLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE PRESENTED. A TEN-YEAR CAPITALIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS PRESENTED IN THE FINAL CHAPTER, WHICH IS SEPARATELYBOUND AND IS NOT PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. (FS) SCHOOLFACILITIES SURVEY A report presentedto the Superintendent of Schools and the Board ofPublic Education of the Cityof Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THEPERSON OR ORGAN!ZATION ORIGINATING ITPOINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DONOT NECES- SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICEOF EDU- CATION POSITION OR POLICY, by HARRY B. SAUNDERS SCHOOL FACILITIES CONSULTANT larch 31, 1965 TO: The Superintendentof Schools, and the Board of PublicEducation This survey is recommendedas a School Facilities Program for the School Districtof Philadelphiaand is ready for, evaluation by the Superintendent,the Board of Education, and thecommunity-at-large. An evaluationof the report bythe Board of Education, the Superintendent and staff, andcommunity organizations, should follow thispresentation immediately. to the community Presentations should be scheduledso that an understanding of the key features of the reportcan be established and responses can be made to the Board of Educationby interested communitygroups. The listing of projects in the 1965column of the 10. year Capital Program is proposedas a tentative capital budget for thisyear. The remainderof the project be considered listings are to as a long-range capitalprogram to be followed and usedas a guide for the development of eachsubsequent year's capitalbudget. It is intended that the evaluationof, and recommenda- tions for revisions to, the proposedtentative 1965 Capital Budget and the 10-year CapitalProgram, be madebefore final adoption by the Boardof Education. March 31, 1965 Harry B. Saunders SCHOOL FACILITIESSURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A Letter to the Superintendentof Schools and the Board of Education Foreword Acknowledgments CHAPTER 1 Educational Policies Adopted by the 1 Philadelphia Board of Education Relating to School Facilities I Basic Educational Principles 1 II Approved Programs of Study 3 III Report of the Special Committee 27 on Nondiscrimination IV Statement of Goals for the Planning 29 and Construction of School Facilities V School Planning Criteria 30 CHAPTER 2 Development of the Capital Program 36 I General Review of Existing 36 Sites and Buildings II Population Enrollment Data 55 III anancial Data 62 IV Scope of the Facilities Program 69 V New School and Existing School 71 Capital Needs Page CHAPTER 2 Development of the Capital Program(continued) VI Pre.School Facilities 184 VII Kindergarten Facilities 186 VIII Administrative Facilities 188 IX Features of the School Facilities 193 Program that Foster Integration CHAPTER 3 Organization, Objectives, andFunctions 201 of the School Facilities Division I Objectives 201 II Functions 201 III Organization 203 IV Recommended Policies and 215 Procedures CHAPTER 4 Ten -Year Capital Program 1965-1974 Separately Bound 1-to 50 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION SCHOOL FACILITIES SURVEY Foreword In September, 1964, the Philadelphia Board of Public Education entered into a contract with Mr. Harry B. Saunders to serve as a Consultant for School Facilities. The assignment is unique in the area of consulting in that it included the Administrative responsibility for the operation of all functions in the newly formed School Facilities Division. The Consultant was authorized to function operationallyas an Associate Superintendent of the School Facilities Division, taking part in the dayaoto.dgy decisions regarding the current School Facilities Program,as well as participating as a member of the Superintendent's Cabinet. The performance, of this assigned function and at the same time preparing a survey of capital needs and an evaluation of the present staff organization and operating procedures, has made it possible to develop a depth of understanding of the total school facility need that would not otherwise have been possible. The survey of facilities was performed througha system of visitations to the schools with Principals, District Superintendents, and District Engineers.Evaluation of the needs was developed by discussion with individual school custodians, teachers, depart. ment heads, principals and directors of the various departments of instruction. The intent of the surveywas to predicate all statements of need on the physical requirements of the instruc- tional programs. Inspection by the Philadelphia City Department of Licenses and Inspections were made in all schools to identify code and safety requirements needing immediate attention. Corrective action on these items is under way. The Consultant has been in attendance at City Planning Commission meetings every other week, and he has woe-d and met continuously with the staffs of the Redevelopment Authi.-.ty and the City Planning Commission. These sessions have made it possible for the School District and the city agencies to be apprised of each other's activities. This cooperative action must be continued and extended in depth as specific projects are being developed for authorization. The evaluation of the present organization, functions and procedures, and the ensuing recommendations, has been a contin- uous process of development as the result of administering the program during these past seven months. Emphasis has been placed upon the development and organization of definite supportive services necessary to augment the instructional program. It was necessary to augment the services of the Consultant with personnel immediately because all but one of the former Associate Superintendent's staff had been dispersed to other administrative offices. 'Major support was given to the survey when three high school Department Heads were assigned to the office of the School Facilities Division. Their assistance in evaluation of needs and preparation of this report has been invaluable. Con-. tinuity of the long-range plans in this report canebs assured if these men are permanently assigned to the Division of School Facilities. It is significantly important that the Superintendent and the Board of Public Education recognize the fact that thissurvey of facilities and the proposed 10 -year capital program in itself will not develop into a successful program unless it is supported by immediate action to adopt the recommendations for organization, function, and procedure of operation for the School Facilities Division. ii The verysuccess of projects which affect the opening of the school year in September, 1965,as well as long-range projects, depend upon the immediatedevelopment of staffs and establish. ment of new operatingresponsibilities.A multi-million-dollar capital program requires definiteschedules, standardized procedures, and highly competent individualsto expedite all phases of the operation. This report will fall flat and be placed on the shelvesamong others if it is not followed by supportive action by the Boardof Public Education. The energy of momentum is developedin the proposedprogram. Each year's needs are based upon thesuccessful completion of the previous year's projects. The Board of Public Educationhas already taken important and significant action to meet therequirements of a successfully accelerated capitalprogram. They have adopted goals and criteria to actas guidelines for the planning of thisentire program. They have recognized thefact that the School Facility Program needsfar exceed the financial limitations placed upon the School Districtby the present bond debt limitation of 3% of the totalassessed evaluation. The physical plant requirementsof the Districtcan never be met under this 3% debt limitationbecause the yearly rate ofcon- struction and replacement wouldnot solve existing problems as fast as new ones would arise.Recognizing this fact, the Board of Education hasrequested the State Legislatureto make provision for increasingthe debt limit from 3% to 5%. The citizens of Philadelphiamust be madeaware of the Board of Education's action and givetheir wholehearted supportof this proposal to the State Legislators. Decadence