Mi.VSM Ml' n' ''ti, RURAL SCHOOL SURVEY of NEW YORK STATE Hntt afoUegc of Agttcultutc At Qtornell MniuetBtta ffitbratg Cornell University Library LB 3218.N7B8 Rural school survey of New ^°'''*,jH?.i,^*' 3 1924 013 371 863 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013371863 RURAL SCHOOL SURVEY of NEW YORK STATE JOINT COMMITTEE ON RURAL SCHOOLS State Grange G. W. DUNN MRS. F. GATES G. C. McNINCH Department of Education F. B. GILBERT R. P. SNYDER G. M. WILEY Dairymen's League E. R. EASTMAN, Secretary ALBERT MANNING N. F. WEBB Farm Bureau Federation H. c. Mckenzie, vice-chmrman w. g. mcintosh c. s. post h. g. reed State College of Agriculture J. E. butterworth p. j. kruse G. A. WORKS, Chairman Home Bureau Federation MRS. M. E. ARMSTRONG MRS. A. E. BRIGDEN MRS. EDWARD YOUNG Stale Teachers' Association J. D. JONES MYRTLE E. MacDONALD W. E. PIERCE Committee on Direction G. A. WORKS, Director MRS. A. E. BRIGDEN. Assistant Director G. M. WILEY, Assistant Director RURAL SCHOOL SURVEY of NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS By JULIAN E. BUTTERWORTH PROFESSOR OF RURAL EDUCATION CORNELL UNIVERSITY Ithaca, New York 1922 /V7 /it Copyright, 1922, by Geokge a. Works © Eeeec ^^^VflM^^- WM-F-FELL CO-PRINTERS PHILADELPHIA ^ FOREWORD THIS study of the school buildings of rural communities of New York state should be suggestive to those who are in- terested in, or responsible for, the administration of rural schools. In addition to presenting a body of suggestive facts Dr. Butterworth has made two valuable contributions. His develop- ment of a score card that is especially adapted to the rating of the small school building should be of material assistance to rural school superintendents. Of fundamental importance is the philoso- phy of administration that characterizes his discussion of improve- ment of school facilities. The ideal of leadership in securing better school buildings permeates his whole discussion. Its significance is likely to be overlooked by the school administrator. This survey of the rural schools of New York state was made possible by the Commonwealth Fund. This Fund not only fur- nished the money for the conduct of the survey, but also bore the expense of printing the results of the studies. A complete list of the reports will be found at the back of this volume. Geo. a. Works Director TABLE OF CONTENTS chap. page Foreword 5 Lists of Illustrations and Diagrams 9 List of Tables 11 I. An Analysis of Existing Conditions 17 A. One- and Two-Teacher Buildings 17 1. How the Facts Were Collected 17 2. A General Measure of These Buildings 36 3. Problems in the Use of These General Measures 38 4. Are the Types of Facilities Provided in Accordance with Modem Hygienic Requirements? 40 5. Are the Facilities Provided Such as Enable the School to Perform in Full Its Function in the Community? 60 6. Does the District Keep Its Existing Facilities in Such Con- dition that the Maximum of Educational Efficiency May be Secured? 65 7. In What Respects Are the Buildings Strong and in What Are They Weak? 67 8. On What Points do the Buildings Receive Additional Credit? 67 9. Does the Community Protect Its Property Adequately? .. . 71 B. Buildings with Three or More Teachers 71 1. How the Facts Were Collected 71 2. The Scores 73 3. Some General Information 77 4. To What Extent Are Modem Facilities Provided? 79 5. In What Respects Are These Buildings Strong and in What Are They Weak? 93 II. A Program of Improvement 96 A. What Are the Causes of Present Conditions? 96 1. How Representative District Superintendents Analyze the Situation , 96 2. Causes of Present Conditions as Revealed by Statistical Analysis 98 B. A More Enlightened Public Opinion Needed 116 C. Higher and More Definite Minimum Standards 121 1. The Present Situation 121 2. Proposed Minimum Standards for One- and Two-Teacher Buildings 126 D. Financial Penalties and Rewards 127 1. A Suggestion of Procedure 127 2. What Would It Cost to Improve a Typical One-Teacher Building? 129 E. Summarizing Statement 129 7 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS p^cng PAGE Evidence of community pride in its school. Canandaigua No. 9, Ontario Co. 88 One type of recently constructed village school building. Consolidated school at Orchard Park, Erie Co 88 An illustration of a poor building in a small village 89 What one community did through community cooperation 120 What No. 11, Galway, Saratoga County, did 121 LIST OF DIAGRAMS DIAGRAM PAGE 1. Every school building in communities under 4,500 has been scored in the shaded areas. The seven sections into which the state was di- vided are indicated by the heavy lines 15 2. Median scores for one- and two-teacher buildings. The essential standard score is indicated at the right of the heavy vertical line; the additional score to the left of this line 38 3. Proportion that glass area is of floor space in one- and two-teacher schools. The standard is at least 1:5 41 4. Translucency of shades in one- and two-teacher schools as indicated by the color 42 5. Window placement in one- and two-teacher schools. Light from one side is the standard 44 6. Types of heating apparatus in one- and two-teacher schools 45 7. Drinking facilities and towels in one- and two-teacher schools 47 8. Oiled floors in one- and two-teacher schools 48 9. Methods of sweeping and dusting in one- and two-teacher schools .... 49 10. Kinds of toilets in one- and two-teacher schools 51 11. Effectiveness of different kinds of toilets in one- and two- teacher schools 53 12. Types of pupils' desks in one- and two-teacher schools 56 13. Kinds of blackboard in one- and two-teacher schools 57 14. Height of lowest blackboard in one-teacher schools. The dotted line shows suitable height when there is but one height of blackboard .... 59 15. Percentage of one- and two-teacher schools having a playground area equal to or greater than the amount shown 61 16. Kinds of artificial lighting in one- and two-teacher schools 64 9 DUGRAM PAGE 17. Condition of certain items in one- and two-teacher buildings 66 18. Median score of one- and two-teacher buildings on each of the items required for essential standard credit. The median is interpreted in terms of the percentage of a perfect essential standard score that is attained 69 19. Percentage of schools with three or more teachers having adjusted scores equal to or greater than those shown 76 20. Percentage of schools with three or more teachers having a ratio of glass area to floor space equal to or above the standard of 1: 5 81 2l! Window placement in schools with three or more teachers 84 22. Fire protection in buildings with three or more teachers 87 23. Percentage of schools with three or more teachers having playground area per pupil equal to or larger than the amount shown 90 24. Median score of buildings with three or more teachers on each of the main groups of items considered. The median is interpreted in terms of the percentage of a perfect score that is attained 95 25. Relationship between median total scores (essential -|- additional) of one-teacher buildings and the average real valuations of the districts maintaining them. The dots show the average score for the different valuations. The line indicates the general trend 100 26. Relationship between average total scores (essential -f- additional) of two-teacher buildings and the average real valuations of the district maintaining them. The dots show the average score for the different valuations. The line indicates the general trend 102 27. Relationship between average total scores (essential -|- additional) of one- and two-teacher buildings and the dates of their construction. These curves were determined by plotting the average for the various dates of construction, and then the line drawn by inspection, greater weight being given to those points which represented the greater num- ber of schools 107 28. Relationship between scores of buildings with three or more teachers and the dates of their construction. These curves were determined by plotting the averages for the various dates of construction, and then the line drawn by inspection, greater weight being given to those points which represented the greater number of schools 110 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE The Standards 28 1. Essential standard and additional credit for one-teacher buildings. ... 37 2. Essential standard and additional credit for two-teacher buildings. ... 39 3. Proportion that glass area is of floor space 41 4. Color and type of shades 42 5. Window placement 43 6. Type of heating and ventilating apparatus used 44 7. Number of thermometers in schools 45 8. Source of water supply for schools 45 9. Certain conditions affecting the supply of pure water 46 10. Means for preventing contagion through drinking or washing 46 11. Is floor oiled? 48 12. Methods of sweeping and dusting 49 13. Number of schools having a first aid outfit 50 14. Kinds of toilets 51 14A. Comparison of the effectiveness of different types of toilets as to seclu- sion, lighting, ventilation, and general condition 52 15. Types of pupils' desks 55 16. Adjustment of seats and desks 56 17. Kind of blackboard 57 18. Minimum height of blackboard 58 19. Number of linear feet of blackboard 60 20. Size of school grounds 61 21. Playground apparatus 62 22. Distribution of play apparatus 63 23. Bulletin board facilities 63 24. Kind of artificial lighting provided 63 25. Schools having a telephone 64 26. Schools having a teacher's room 64 27. Special rooms 65 28. Condition of certain items in the building 66 29. Percentage distribution of essential standard credit 68 30. Distribution of additional credit among the various items 70 31. Amount of insurance in one-teacher schools 72 32. Original score for schools of three or more teachers 73 33. Adjusted score for buildings of three and more teachers 74 II TABLE PAGE 34. Material of construction 78 35. Number of stories 78 36. Shape of buildings 78 37. Distribution as to function of building 79 38. Distribution of schools, showing percentage of class, recitation, and study rooms in which the standard of IS square feet of floor space per pupil is met 80 39. Distribution of schools, showing percentage of class, recitation, and study rooms in which the standard of 200 cubic feet of air space per pupil is met 80 40. Ratio of glass area to floor area in class, recitation, and study rooms ... 81 41. Distribution of schools, showing percentage of class, recitation, and study rooms in which the ratio of glass to floor area is below 1 : S 82 42. Percentage of class, recitation, and study rooms having different types of shades 83 43. Percentage of class, recitation, and study rooms having translucent and opaque shades (on basis of color) 83 44. Percentage of class, recitation, and study rooms having light from dif- ferent directions 84 45. Heating facilities 85 46. Thermostatic control 85 47. Various factors in fire protection 86 48. Methods of cleaning 87 49. Artificial lighting 88 50. Types of blackboard 88 51. Playground area per pupil in average daily attendance 89 52. Number of pieces of playground apparatus 90 53. Percentage of schools having certain kinds of special rooms 91 54. Distribution of the schools on the basis of the percentage of the total number studied receiving different percentages of a perfect score .... 94 55. Causes of present condition of school buildings as indicated by district superintendents 97 56. Distribution of one-teacher schools by total score (essential -|- addi- tional) and real valuation of the district 99 57. Distribution of two-teacher schools by total score (essential -|- addi- tional) and real valuation of the district 101 58. Distribution of schools, with three to four teachers, on basis of score of building and real valuation 103 59. Distribution of schools with five to nine teachers on basis of score of building and real valuation 104 60. Distribution of schools with ten or more teachers on basis of score of building and real valuation 105 61. Distribution of one-teacher schools by total score (essential -f- addi- tional) and date of construction of the building 106 12 TABLE PAGE 62. Distribution of two-teacher schools by total score (essential + addi- tional) and date of construction of building 108 63. Distribution of three- to four-teacher schools by score and date of con- struction of building 109 64. Distribution of five- to nine-teacher schools by score and date of con- struction of building 112 65. Distribution of schools with ten or more teachers by score and date of construction of building 113 66. Orders for condemnation and alterations issued, 1912-1921 124 67. Distribution of orders for condemnation and alterations among the supervisory districts, 1912-1921 12S 68. Estimated cost of improving a typical one-teacher building 130 13 SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS IN RURAL NEW YORK IN PLANNING this study it was considered practicable to cover approximately one-fifth of the supervisory districts of the state. Accordingly 41 districts were selected from the 7 general regions into which the state had been divided for purposes Diagram 1. — Every school building in communities under 4,500 has been scored in the shaded areas. The seven sections into which the state was divided are indicated by the heavy lines of the survey in such a way as to secure supervisory districts that are typical. A secondary consideration was to choose, so far as possible, districts in which other phases of the survey were not IS being studied intensively. One county, Tompkins, was covered completely. For various reasons — illness, pressure of work, etc. — data from only 37 of the 41 districts are to be found in this report. There is thus included 17.8 percent of the 208 supervisory districts, representing 34 of the 57 counties in the state outside of New York city. The map on p. 15 shows the location of these supervisory districts. In all, 1,661 occupied school buildings have been studied. This is about 16 percent of all schoolhouses in the territory under the jurisdiction of district superintendents. These are divided as follows : One teacher 1,438 Two teachers 77 Three and four teachers 31 Five to nine teachers 70 Ten teachers and over 45 All occupied school buildings in these 37 supervisory districts that are found in rural communities as defined in New York state (under 4,500 population) have been included. i6 I. AN ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS A. ONE- AND TWO-TEACHER BUILDINGS 1. How THE Facts Were Collected In order to secure data that would be as comprehensive and significant as possible the well-known device of using a score card was employed. This procedure has certain advantages over the method that has frequently been used in state surveys of collecting facts regarding a few phases only of the school building, such as lighting, heating, cleaning methods, etc. It gives a more compre- hensive view of such buildings, since all the significant phases, in- stead of a few only, are included. Communities may thus be stimulated to think of all the important phases of their school building. In addition, the details of any phase of a building may be studied intensively for the reason that the facts necessary for this purpose have already been collected as the basis for scoring. A third advantage is found in the opportunity, through having com- prehensive facts, of stating the worth of a building in terms of, say, 1,000 points. Thus by including specified factors interpreted in terms of specified standards one is able to say that a building is entitled to 545 or 790 or 950 points. In this way we avoid the use of such indefinite terms as "poor," "good," and "excellent." A score card devised particularly to meet the conditions in one- and two-teacher districts was used. It is obvious that, because of lack of sufficient wealth, modern conveniences, and a large num- ber of children or teachers, the standards of one- and two-teacher buildings cannot be the same as for the larger ones. Thus, a flush toilet system, electric lights, a community room, running water, and similar factors may be possible and necessary for the village schools when they are not for the smaller ones in the open country. In making this score card the services of some 80 persons — state 2 17 rural school supervisors, state school building specialists, local rural school adrhinistrators, and professors of rural education — were utilized. A small number of persons, carefully selected be- cause of ability, experience, and interest, was considered to be of greater value in dealing with such a problem than a large number used without discrimination. Since the methods by which the score card was constructed have been described elsewhere,' they will not be repeated here. From contact with farm people in the state the writer came to realize that the question of defining a set of standards that would, on the one hand, represent professional opinion and recent re- search, and, on the other hand, seem to rural folks to be reasonable and attainable, was a diflScult problem, and from the point of view of the practical effect of the study one of very great importance. Standards should not seem to the rural population to be unattain- able since a group in that state of mind is not stimulated to make progress. On the other hand, the writer is confident that the tj^ical farmer of New York will not be satisfied to have his school buildings measured by standards that are below those of other states or that fail to provide conditions and facilities essential to the physical, moral and intellectual development of his children. He will ask that standards be reasonable, but not that they be such as are designed to satisfy a feeling of complacency. In setting standards for one- and two-teacher buildings that would satisfy these requirements the following procedure was followed: 1. A study of the most recent literature on the subject and of the requirements and suggestions of various states was made and the conclusions put into definite form. 2. The material so collected was then submitted to state rural school supervisors and to a group of New York district superin- tendents with the request that they grade the various standards suggested as to whether they were "s" (satisfactory), "h" (too high), or "1" (too low), for use in making a survey of buildings in their state. They were also asked to make such modifications, where this seemed desirable, as would express their own conception ' Journal of Rural Education, September, 1922. i8 of what the standard should be. These two suggestions were given as guides: "1. The school building and its grounds should be evaluated from the point of view of contributing to the effective training of children: provision for intellectual development; facilities for physical development; safeguarding health and morals. "2. Such standards as are required should be as much of a step toward the ideal as possible, but they should not be such as to seem to the typical rural school patron to be utterly unattainable." Reports were had from 25 state rural school supervisors and from 24 New York district superintendents. On the basis of these returns certain changes were made. The standards finally em- ployed are therefore submitted as representing as nearly as is possible under present conditions a progressive, yet reasonable and attainable, basis for measuring one- and two-teacher buildings. One of the important problems connected with the construction of the score card was what to do with those factors in a building — e. g., teachers' room, work room, telephone, etc. — that, though desirable, are found infrequently and may, therefore, be con- sidered as more or less ideal under present conditions. To require them would be impracticable. One way of meeting the difficulty would be to set 1,000 points as the value to be given an ideal build- ing, the score for a reasonably effective one being set at some point that would include all the desired factors whether that score is 600 or 900. Though this procedure was more simple it was dis- carded in favor of another device. This device divides possible building standards into two groups: those that should be required of all; and those that are in ad- vance of what may be expected of most schools. The former set of standard are called "essential"; the latter, "additional." Under this plan a building that may be accepted as satisfactory will receive the full 1,000 points of essential credit, while a really modern building will have from 275 to 300 points of additional credit. The score of the sample building given is 606 + 32. This indicates that while it has a few factors that justify additional credit it falls far short of meeting the essential requirements. This plan has several advantages over the plan first considered. 19 (1) It meets better the farmer's state of mind in that he is less likely to think of it as involving impracticable standards. He is more likely to be stimulated both to meet the essential standards and to secure additional credit by providing better facilities. (2) Additional credit should not only be given for other factors than those required in the essential standards, such as a work room, but better facilities than those included in the essential standards may be desired in practically any factor. Thus it should be pos- sible to give additional credit for a flush toilet or for movable chair-desks or for a furnace. It is possible to do so under this plan but not under the first plan. (3) A satisfactory score implies that those factors essential to accomplishing the purposes of a rural building are all included and that no other factors may be substituted for them. A play room cannot be a substitute for a pure water supply nor a telephone for a sufficiently large playground, yet this would be possible where a specified number out of 1,000 points is set as the minimum. The plan accepted meets this diffi- culty. (4) To the extent that the division between "essential" and "additional" is acceptable, this device perfprms the service of suggesting to communities that the defects in the essential stan- dards should be corrected before much energy is expended on the additional items. A lack of balance on this point in school building construction is no unusual matter. At the outset the director of the section on School Buildings had to decide, in view of the amount of funds that could properly be given to the study of this problem, between the employment of a small number of experienced scorers reaching a limited number of schools ' and the use of a larger number of scorers with less experi- ence reaching a greater mmiber of schools. The objections to each method are clear. After considerable thought the second procedure was adopted for the reason that it was important that a fair pro- portion of all school buildings in the state should be reached in order that the farmer have confidence in the conclusions. Further- more, it was beUeved that a group of district superintendents could be trained to collect and interpret, on such an objective problem, 1 By this procedure about one-third of the one- and two-teacher schools actually studied could have been scored. data that would have scientific value. The following procedure was followed: (1) The co-operating superintendents were met in groups of from two to eight for purpose of training. Two schools were visited and the buildings scored, discussion helping to reduce differences in methods of recording data and in interpreting them in terms of the standards. (2) The superintendents were invited to send in their first score cards for criticism and most of them did so. (3) When the results were turned in the work of each superintendent was checked^ and necessary corrections were made. The writer, therefore, submits these data in the confident belief that they represent an unusually complete, accurate, and uniform interpre- tation of the situation. Too much credit cannot be given those superintendents whose results are included in this study .^ They ' The checking method tested two factors in the accuracy of the work: (1) Care in recording data in a complete and uniform fashion; (2) care in inter- preting these data in terms of the "credits" or "points" to be given. The first factor considered: Whether either "S" (satisfactory) or "U" (unsatisfactory) were used in describing the condition of the various items; whether a "U" condition was properly described so that the deficiencies were clear to the reader; whether deficiencies were filled in (e. g., item 16 of score card) where deduction was made from full credit; whether the "essential" and the "additional" credits were summarized separately; the frequency with which desks were re- ported as "S" (an index of a reasonably critical attitude toward what is found); the frequency with which the adjustment of desks was reported as "S"; and the frequency with which credit was given for an item where the facts were not recorded. The second factor tested the accuracy of the scorer in interpreting the facts in terms of the standards. For this purpose items 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 24a, 24b, 26, 29a, 41, and 43 were selected as good test situations. In about a dozen cases it was found that the scorer had made errors in one or two particulars to a sufficient extent to require correction. In one case the scorer completely revised his work; in a second case partial revision was neces- sary; in a third case the entire material was thrown out. I am indebted to Mr. W. W. Reitz, graduate student in Rural Education, for the careful manner in which this checking was done. ^ The following participated in collecting the data for one- and two-teacher schools herein presented: County Superintendent Supervisory District Allegany John D. Jones Second Cattaraugus Edw. A. Stratton Fifth Cayuga Mabelle L. Rodger Fifth Chautauqua James G. Pratt Fourth Chemung Walter C. King First Chenango Mary L. Isbell Fifth Chnton Clara E. Soden Third Columbia Mathew G. Rickey Third (Table continued at foot of page 22.) 21 have done a piece of work that called for a tremendous expenditure of energy and have done it in a manner to command respect. The writer is also greatly indebted to Mr. F. H. Wood, chief of the Division of Buildings and Grounds of the State Department of Education. He has not only made available the resources of his Division but has given unstintedly of his own time and energy whenever demands were made upon them. On the following pages is presented a copy of the score card filled out for a fairly typical one-teacher school. Suggestions for the Use of this Score Card 1. Fill in the general information called for near the top of the first page — "year schoolhouse was built," etc. 2. Make the measurements called for regarding the building — width, length, height, etc. — and record the figures. While it may seem that there are many such facts, remember that every one is County Superintendent Supervisory District Delaware Milton G. Nelson Fifth Dutchess Frank O. Green Foiu:th Erie William E. Pierce Third Franklin Myrtle E. MacDonald First Genesee H. William Dyer First Greene Thomas C. Perry First Herkimer Silas C. Kimm Second Jefferson Mrs. G. L. DeOloqui Sixth Lewis A. WJnfield Trainor Fourth Madison Irving S. Sears First Monroe Mark B. Furman Second Oneida Glenn G. Steele First Ontario Leon J. Cook First Orleans Chas. W. Smith Third Otsego Harrison Cossaart Fifth Rensselaer Mrs. Adelaide W. Gardner Second St. Lawrence William T. Clark First Virgil C. Warriner Fourth Saratoga Lou Messenger Second Schoharie Ralph W. Eldridge Third Seneca Chas. B. Earl Second Steuben Winfred Morrow Second Sullivan Chas. S. Hick Second Tompkins Fred A. Beardsley First Hattie K. Buck Second ' John D. Biglow Third Warren . Mrs. Rose Minnick Third Westchester Robert D. Knapp Fourth Wyoming George H. Stratton Third 22 significant in some way to the proper housing of school children. Remember, too, that accurate facts are the raw material for making accurate conclusions. BUTTERWORTH SCHOOL-BUILDING SCORE CARD Devised by JULIAN E. BUTTERWORTH Proffuur of Rural EJaeaticn, Corutll Unmniif FOR ONE-TEACHER SCHOOfc BUILDINGS / Year Kbodbouse "^ buili. /.^.iA .7 Anesed vahluiao of diwrict . . . ^.. .^.?. f .^. .0.*/... Yc«f of aiUitioni or tlterxioia II title to school property canine $VX> or dver properljr Rcorded? > Eiiitiutcd preMfit vilue of Atnount for which buOdin^ b mf buildifiKi and poundt imured . '.i.U. 1. Sbe of cUatroom i ii iLwh-.J/./.V^l 3. H.i,*. .../!'. 4 4, Pupil apadxr...^X 3. EnroUmeot ..... .f.^ „ . . , 6. Floor area ...m.k.QM,»::.. 7. Area per pupil of "...n... ^...i.i-.i. (Mi 8. Area per pupil ol enrollment 9. Cubical Gontenu. '°-^;»V:&t;f:?*v./(f.'. il. Cu. h. per puQil of, ' // 2. Shape of cUuroocn , . , ti IZ Rabo width to length J. '..(:.T. . . 3. Window placonent 13. Number of windowt for li'ehrinK on: front. ..M..; reir. ..*..; risht...JL..: left...V... 34. Dinance between windgw and (ront wall ../... /P. . . .... . . . 15. Heiehlof window till.../. 16. Dittance tos of win^pwi to ceilins ,..X...2 17. Dittance between windowi o ki. ...I'm.' 18. Ratio height of window* to of ntm.,J..l.X.:S 19. If ventilation window*, lequiremenn not met T... "Aii^ii^li'- 4. Glawuca 20. Front.. ti^L.jf.lk^; leff.. 21. Total area... j? .P. 22. Kaiio glan area to floor -r«i.. /.;.e.-.f!f*r.; wtlUj^yfSfHA dado . . .'/ffV«rviM^ ). Iniide finish 32. Material 33. Color .. . 34. Workmamhip ._ 35. Simplicity .... .V. ' ■ IA«i.T-;. . .,^ rom floor. . . v.Q... .. .«. . ..e!WW«#M*..'..,f. IS. I. BUckboard 36. Kind . , !vt jt:».^^ . . . 37. Location . T A«MUr> 38. Height from floor. 39. Numbci 40. ConxTiiipn .. Bulletin board «• 4L Kind y... 42. Size 43. It It within reach of children? . .j^. 45. Is number sufficient?.^ 46. Number of sisei. ....?.. . .^. . . 47. Il this number sufficient?. .9rV. 48. % ata where it»t.it not properly . adjusted ..lir.7« I 49. % cases where de^ is not properly so. ci£o,'Kr)(uMl!k.)'iyiij^ 51. Tvcrol ndiCT'i iak. .VflK^. 52. Tnw of KM^'t iiak.4AJfuHjl/ "."f'-Sl.i;:;;:;: 13kS«3tine imacnnesta^ 54. Are seats anapged on long axa of room? /TrV ,■.... (A 55. Width of aiiHs if. 56. Minimum dittance betwem desks and iniide walls. . .*.*. .^^ ; desks and window walls. . ¥.^. 57. Are rows of scats arranged Kvfar at. ponibLe according to sice?. /M 58. % caiet where distance between desk and seat is not satiifaciaty ''I^^Mut^- 3. In recording the condition of an item, e. g., shades, do not say "good," "fair," "bad," etc. These words mean different things to different persons. Use, instead, "S" (satisfactory) or "U" 23 (unsatisfactory). These words may convey more nearly the same idea to different persons if one understands that "5" means that the condition of the item is stich as not to interfere with the purpose of 17. Cloakroom 64. Facilitiq provided. 65. Dcficicnda . 18. Workroom j. 66. Ttciliiin pnn-Ided ...Q... 1ft. St or cTooa ^ 68. FacHitin provide) ...Q- 30. Library ?0. FicilitiM|irovided,Q.,. 7|. Deficiencia , 21. Tucbcr'a room Q 72. Size 73. Equipment 75. Facilirin provided. . 76. DeEciencicf 23. Neighborhood room « 77. Faciliiiei provided U. . 82. Area foul air ouilef ^a" ■ " ■ 83. Is there a thermometc|?.i . t^ *ies 7.i . Fire extinguisher /I 85. KiDd V... i. Cleaning; system S6. Meihod ot s»erpinE_f 87. Method of dusting Jt>a«t 8S. Is Door oiled?. .liU... 'ruu. '. Water sup] 89. Source t*r»»v:«»i|. trtr-.—rji. . .:, 90. How. (ar is water carried ?.^W 91. Distance of well from ileareM stable, outhouse, or other poisibli source of conlamination. -T'VF . 92. Is well proleg{4_''^ii surface drainage ? . . 93. How often is analyzed? . ."lUfVr^-fWr. 94. Other faeii 95. Drinking facUicfeajprovided.. 96. If riot fountain, are paper cops or individual prinking cups used ? '^: 97. Are individual drinking cups ade- quately protected when not in use? 98. Washing facilities provided. 99. Are individual towd towels provided?. 100. li soap provided?. .X 101. h there ainirrot?.. I. Artificial lighting _ 102. Kind Y... 103. Is it suflicirnt? 104. Kooms not lighted.!. I. Toilets -fTZ 105 KInd.^r?** Material 4^-4^.. 127. Heieht 128. Conditio 129. Material .ALlII jj. 130. Conditiop^ 3.l>tt\^rvw¥^.. : Condition of repair ^ 131. Rep.nirs needed, /4<< ■':°ia: Position on grounds 132. Docs huildint interfere with play- ground' . -W-O 133. Is It ivell placed for esthetic effect? Jf^^ nlH*^.(f>f '*f^ . Orientation 134. Dircctioi 135. Is this the most satisfactoiy oricn- iMder the t ,i,^.. that item in the school. Thus, if any of the shades are badly worn or if any of their rollers are broken, the condition is clearly "U." 4. When a "U" condition is found, describe briefly why it is 24 unsatisfactory, as, "3 badly worn; 2 rollers broken." You then have detailed information that will tell you how unsatisfactory the condition is and will make it unnecessary for you to go back to the building if you wish to tell another person exactly what is wrong. the: score Ntir- In column 2 below plm the ncdit dlowtd ladi ium u "cumtiil ■luidiri) credit": in column 4 place ihe "■ddiuonij credit! miy be summiriKd in cfflumn* 3 and S under (he dificreni group hudingi.- If ■dditioiut credit ii griatcd lot item* uoi Kiven ia the bulletin, ihtM Uiould be included at the boRom of thii pi£e under "Olher Iitm^'* •SK- te.M^BU.d«4C»4l. ««S!- 1 2 1 4 S " 1 2 3 4 5 I. Tht OUHOO- 340 m /?• 2S.Ani£<:i.lli|htin|...' 10 fl I.SU. 40 ^d /^ 2(I.To!ku l.Sb,H 20 « ?• 1. Kind 20 l( 35 /(I b. rUctmtoi 10 y 4.GUM>rti 30 u C. 0»dil>M 20 l!f s.siudti 15 i ' d.Ad«|u.cr IS /»' 6 Floor IS ',■ 30 Tdtphon. T.Will. IS - 31 B.U s $■ ■ ColarH;h.m< 20 /i 32 Finfiid«urG< . 10 f 9. [fuidf fcnuh . ... IS r s (1 10 Blictboird 30 /o M FUiudpot. 10 '0 f 1^ ll.BulUdnboud . -. . 10 d iV. -n» buddi.il 10 nwnl lU m /4' 13. Dub 10 Ii' •■ P-PJ- 40 ,lfl IS frf b Tuditn .. . to ,f ' IS 16 23 fi' 3a.R i Ifi.Fytln-a 20 ly IT.OukfMmi 23 y V.TTwdoundi no n-t _il 2S li- U 44.Sh»n 10 fe 20. Libaqr .... 20 Ii' IS til 11. Tuthti'i cooB .... 46.C>ndiii«i 20 « 32 PUrrowB . 47.F.iicin« s ^ ^ « WdU 10 JM \u ^ IS (1 SO ED«.r»run> IS «• ..Kind 30 Ii- SI Auiuibility IS h!, b Ad«qu>c]r 30 an Oihtr Ii.. S . - IS Jt h. Fiolitit* for dnnkini 20 iJ c. Ficilina fbt •ruhoif 15 f To«.lSco» tOh 35- 5. Where the term "deficiencies" is foimd, describe briefly what is lacking. See the sample score card for illustration. 2S 6. After recording all the facts begin the work of assigning value to each of the items given on page 3 of the score card (see p. 25). Com- pare, for example, the size of the class room you are studying with the 42. Architectural appearance 136. Desirable features 137. Undesirable featurN. , . . 138. Number sq. tii..-.C.i.. 139. For what purpose ii more land than 160 m). rdi. needed under (hese conditions?. l/leOfS^^ 41 Shape of giounda l-tO. Shape dywibed. ./..^^^^^ 45. Slope and drainage 141. Are grounds fairly level 142. Anlherw«IUr.-iliird>. 4G. Condition 143. Unsiehty objects 144. Attractive feaiurei 146. Height -. 147. Condition ....fC-*..... 48. Wblkfi y-J 148. Kind .....y. .■ 149. Condition 49. Playground apparatus >* I SO. Apparatus U... 151. Condition . SO, Environment 152. Desirable features.. 153. Undesiuble feanires. iirable learures 51. Accessibility 154. How far is school (romoneof the highway of the district? 1 tiighwavs c 155. Percentage of homes in district within I mde..^'4 miles away?. .Tt^Mfi.^-. . standards given as to "number of square feet of floor space," and "number of cubic feet of air space per pupil." If it fully meets the standards, record in column 2 of the score card the full value 26 "40." If it does not fully meet the standards, column 2 of the Standards which describes situations not up to the essential, yet those that are frequently found, will give you some aid in deter- mining how much credit you should allow. If you find more space than the essential standard requires, then the school is entitled to additional credit on this item. Column 3 of the Standards will aid you in giving a value. Record this in column 4 of the score card. You will note that the data are arranged in the same order as the items on the score card and in the Standards so as to make the comparison easier. 7. You will, of course, find situations frequently that are different from any descriptions given in the Standards. Use your best judgment as to what credit should be allowed. If you do much scoring of buildings, it will contribute to the imiformity of your grading if you will write down in the Standards a brief description of the situation, together with the credit you have allowed. Note that, in all values given, an "S" condition is assumed. Thus, if the shades are such as to color and type to justify only the 5 points sug- gested in column 2 of the Standards, a reduction from that credit must still be made if the condition is unsatisfactory. 8. After filling in the credit for all the items add up the figures and record the totals at the bottom of the page. Keep the "essen- tial " credit and the " additional " credit separate. The score in the building analyzed on the sample score card shows that it lacks 394 points (1,000 — 606) of meeting desirable standards but that in cer- tain respects it more than meets such standards. You now have the information that not only tells you exactly where your building stands on the scale, but also what improvements need to be made in order to provide better conditions for the children. 9. Where columns 2 or 3 of the Standards are blank, it does not mean that no such situations exist; rather that it has been difficult to state the standards so as to convey a uniform meaning. In such cases use your best judgment in assigning values. 10. Note that for two-teacher buildings a few changes have been stated on the last page of the Standards. Data for the second class- room of such a building may be recorded with that of the first 27 class room thus: width 20-22'. In assigning values for these two class rooms the facts regarding both must, of course, be considered. The standards used in interpreting the facts and in assigning values to situations are presented herewith: The Standards 1 1. Essential Standards: These standards represent the least that may be expected of an effective one-teacher school building and its grounds. 2. Less Than Essen- tial: This column describes typical conditions that are below those that should be accepted as essential and gives the values that should be assigned. 3. More than Es- sential: This column describes typical conditions that are above those that may be accepted as essential and gives values that should be assigned as additional credit. 1. Size Score: 40 (a) IS square feet of floor space per pupil of room capacity (number of sittings). (6) 200 cubic feet of air space per pupil of room capacity (number of sittings) . Score: 20 (a) 12 square feet of floor space per pupil of room capacity. (6) 120 cubic feet of air space per pupil of room capacity. Score: 10 (a) 20 square feet of floor space per pu- pil of room ca- pacity. (6) 240 cubic feet of air space per pupil of room capacity. 2. Shape of room Score; 20 (a) Rectangular: width 4 to length 5; or width 2 to length 3 (ap- proximately) . Score: 10 (a) Square or nearly so. Score: 5 (fl) Rectangular: width 3 to length 4. . Window placement Score: 35 (a) Windows grouped on left of pupils. Ventilation windows may be permitted if they are placed well toward the top of the rear or right walls, are small, and are covered with opaque curtains. (6) Any large area without windows to be at front end of side wall. Windows should not extend be- yond front row of seats. (c) Not over ten inches between windows. (d) Windows between 3 and 4 feet from floor with distance from floor to top of window equal to one-half width of room. Score; 10 (a) Windows on two sides and rear. (6) Distance between windows at front and at rear end of side wall about equal. (c) 6 feet (approxi- mately) between windows. (d) Windows between 3 and 4 feet from floor with about 2K feet from top of window to ceiling. 4. Glass area Score: 30 (a) Ratio to floor space 1:5 (1:4 if light comes from north or side that is considerably shaded). Score: 10 (a) Ratio of floor space 1:9 (1:7 if light comes from north or from side that is considerably shaded. 1 The score card is published by the World Book Co., Yonlcers, N. Y. Copies of these standards may be secured without cost by asking the New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, N. Y., for the bulletin entitled: " Improving the School Building FaciUties in One- and Two-teacher Districts Through Measure- ment." 28 The Standards — Continued 5. Shades Score: IS (a) Translucent. (b) Fastened so as to protect from sun without shutting off light unnecessarily; movable or double mounted with one curtain at top of window and one at bottom. Score: 5 (a) Dark green color. (b) Single shade fastened at top. 6. F(oor Score: IS (a) Rift-sawed, hard pine relatively free from knots, closely laid (or equivalent material). (6) Double floor. Score: S (a) Soft, native timber. (6) Same.' Score: S (o) Maple, beech, oak (or equivalent ma- terial); or cement covered with bat- tleship linoleum. (6) Same. 7. Walls Score: IS (o) Ordinary plaster or commonly accepted substitutes, such as beaver board or plaster board. Score: 5 (a) Matched lumber. Score: S (a) Smooth-flnish.hard plaster without high gloss; no wainscoating ex- cept glazed brick or tile. 8. Color scheme Score: 20 (o) Walls and ceiling in some light reflecting color pleasing in its general effect. Score: 5 (o) Prevailing color dark blue, dark green or other light-absorb- ing color. Score: 10 (s) Walls: southern ex- posure — light gray or light green or light drab; north- ern exposure — light cream or buff. (ft) Ceiling: white, slightly modified by wall color, (c) Dado: darker, har- monious color. 9. Inside finish Score: IS (a) Good quality material, local or otherwise. (b) Tastefully painted or varnished. (c) Good workmanship. (d) Without unnecessary carving or fluting. Score: S (a) Hard wood. (ft) Same. (c) Same. (d) Same. 10. Blackboard Score: 30 (a) Slate. (6) Minimum of about 20 linear feet for school with IS or more pupils, or about 10 linear feet for school with fewer than IS pupils; none on window wall. (c) Chalk and eraser tray. (d) Two heights from floor; 26 inches and 32 inches. One height will be acceptable if not over 28 inches from floor and if board is at least 3J4 feet wide. Score: 10 (o) Painted boards or plaster. (6) Minimum space the same; some black- board between win- dows. (c) Same. ((f) Same. n. Bulletin board Score: 10 (o) Soft wood covered with burlap or beaver board. (b) Minimum size SOO square inches. (c) Within reach of children so they may read material on it readily. Score: (a) Use of walls, win- dow frames, etc. Score: S (a) Cork carpet set in neat frame, (ft) Minimum size, 900 square inches, (c) Within reach of children. ' The word "same" means that the same standards apply as are outlined in column 1 under the same letter or figure. 29 The Standards — Continued 12. (a) Desks (1) Single desks. Score: 40 (2) 5 sizes except in small schools. Judge this factor by whether there are enough sizes to provide adequately for proper seating of all children.' (6) Teacher's desk Score: 10 (1) Well constructed, attrac- tive, with 2 or more drawers fitted with locks. (2) Substantial ofl&ce chair. Score: IS (1) Double, non-adjust- able desks. (2) Same. Score: 5 (1) Table with single drawer. (2) Straight-backed chair of kitchen type. Score: 10 (1) Movable chair- desks. (2) Same. Score: . (1) Roll top oi ceptionally desk. (2) Swivel chair. good 13. Seating arrangements Score: 25 (a) On long axis of room; so faced that light comes from left if the windows are on one side only. (6) At least 18 inches between rows with at least 30 inches be- tween seats and walls. (c) So far as possible rows should be made up of seats of same size. (d) Desk set at such distance from seat that pupil may work while sitting in an upright position. In general, desk should over- lap seat by about two inches. Score: 10 (o) On short cixis of room. (&) Same. (c) Rows made up of seats of different size. (d) Same. Score: 5 (o) On long axis of room so faced that light comes from left if the windows are on one side onl3f. (6) 20 inches between rows; 36 inches between seats and bl ackboards; 24 inches between seats and window wall. (c) So far as possible rows made up of seats of same size. (d) Same. 14. Closet Score: 15 (a) Cabinet with door for various kinds of teaching supplies. Score: 5 (a) Open shelves. Score: 5 (a) Closet with door and shelves. 15. Clock Score: 5 (o) Small clock on teacher's desk. Score: (a) Teacher's watch. (a) Wall clock." 16. Fuel room Score: 20 (a) Outside fuel shed ; well lighted ; substantial structure; painted to match school building, or (6) Cellar under building; well lighted; thoroughly dry. Score: 10 (a) Use of shed con- nected with school building for fuel, store and wash room combined, the fuel being piled in open bins. Score: 5 (a) Room at least 6x8, located near stove with provision for storing both fuel and kindling. (6) Lighted; ceiled side walls and ceil- ing. (c) Well fitting door effectively separat- ing fuel room from class room. ^ The seat should be of such height as will permit the pupil's feet to rest squarely on the floor, and the desk should be so placed that he can write easily while sitting upright. 30 The Standards — Continued 17. Cloak room Score: 25 (fl) Sanitary wardrobes within the class room or single cloak room (6) Wall space per pupil at least 8 inches with hooks adjusted to size of children. (c) So located as to be under di- rect supervision of teacher. 18. Work room Score; 5 (a) Hooks on class room walls. Score: 10 (o) Separate cloak rooms for boys and girls, heated, ven- tilated and lighted. (6) Wall space per pu- pil at least 8 inches with hooks ad- justed to size of children, (c) Same. Score: 20 (a) Size at least 12 X 10 feet. (6) Opening from class room so as to be under supervision of teacher. (c) Well lighted. (d) Equipped with benches, tools, shelves and cabin- ets needed for man- ual training, agri- culture, cooking, sewing, or such similar practical subjects as are taught. 19. Store room Score: 15 (o) Compartment («. g., in cloak room) for broom, mop, dust- pan, etc. (6) Sufficiently large to care for all materials (except teaching supplies) needed for building, Score: (o) Use of class room, cloak room, vesti- bule, or fuel room for this purpose. Score: 5 (o) Closet. (6) Sufficiently large to care for all ma- terials (except teaching supplies) needed for build- ing. 20. Library Score: 20 (o) Bookcase with glass doors. Score: 5 (o) Open book shelves. Score: IS (o) Alcove with book- case or built-in bookshelves having glass doors. (6) Heated, well lighted. (c) Table and chairs. (d) Separated from class room by cur- tain or screen. 21. Teacher's room Score: 10 (a) Room opening off class room; heated and well lighted. (6) Size at least SO square feet, (c) Equipped with comfortable chair and cot. 31 The Standards — Continued 22. Playroom Score: 20 (a) Room in basement: substantial ^ floor: furnace separated by fire-resisting walls; sufficient light; ceiling at least 8 feet high, or (6) Where movable chairs are provided for the class room, it may be used for playroom. 23. Neighborhood room Score: 25 (o) Use of basement class room (where seated with mov- able chairs) or other room if fold- ing chairs are pro- vided. 24. Heat and ventilation Score: 30 (o) Type: (1) Jacketed stove. (6) Adequacy: Score: 30 (1) Maintain heat at 68° in every part of room and supply 30 cubic feet of air per pupil per minute. Tliese indicated by: (a) Grate area of at least 210 square inches for room containing 8,000 cubic feet or less. (6) Fresh air intakes of at least 175 square inches for room containing 8,000 cubic feet or less, (c) Foul air ilue of at least 240 square inches for room containing 8,000 cubic feet or less, (c) Heat control: Score: 10 (1) Thermometer. Score: IS () Same, (c) Same. 35. Vestibule Score: 20 (o) Size at least 6x8 feet. (i>) Substantial floor; inside walls of matched lumber; outside walls same as building proper. U) Well lighted. The vestibule may be dis- pensed with when adequate protection from storms is pro- vided by means of a porch, use of weather strips on door or location of building. 36. Material of construction Score: 25 (a) First quality lumber. Score: 5 (o) Logs or ijoor qual- ity lumber. Score: 10 (o) Brick, concrete or tUe. 37. Foundation Score: 15 (o) Stone (or equivalent local ma- terial). (6) Height: 18 to 30 inches. Score: S (o) Brick, tile or con- crete. (W Height: 18 to 30 inches. 38. Roof Score: 20 (o) Shingle roof. Score: 5 (o) Paper roof. Score: 10 (o) Slate roof. 39. Condition of repair Score: 30 (fl) Paint in good gtate of preser- vation. (6) No broken window-panes, steps, boards on siding, etc. (c) No markings on buildings. 40. Location on grounds Score: 20 (a) Building so located that (1) The effectiveness of the grounds for play purposes is not interfered with, e. g., unless grounds are con- siderably larger than the minimum given in Item 43, the building should be to- ward one side and the front of the grounds. (2) It looks well; not too near the road nor yet too far back on the grounds. 34 The Standards — Continued il. Orientation' Score: 25 (fl) Class room placed so as to (1) Receive direct sunlight some time during the day (not north). (2) Avoid direct sunlight dur- i ng entire day (not south). (6) Fac tors to be considered: Whether mornings are foggy (favoring western exposure) ; whether high hills or trees af- fect lighting; whether morn- ings are less cloudy than after- noons (favoring eastern ex- posure); direction of prevail- ing winter winds; attractive outlook. Score: 10 (a) Northern or south- ern exposure. Score: 5 (o) General east or west exposure with angle of 10-15 de- grees toward south. 42. Architectural appearance Score: 10 (a) Cottage type. 43, Size of grounds Score; 25 (o) About 160 square rods — suffi- cient to provide: (1) Site for building. (2) Small lawn with a tew trees and some shrubbery. (3) Playground providing for games and apparatus indi- cated in Jtem 49. Where conditions make necessary a barn or shed for horses or cars, more space must be provided. Score: 5 (o) About 20 square rods. Score: 15 (o) 320 square rods. i4. Shape of grounds Score: 10 (a) Of such shape that there is little waste space. In general a rectangular form is most de- sirable. 45. Slope and drainage Score: 25 (a) Natural elevation with grounds sloping away from building, (ft) Grounds well drained, (c) Quick-drying, fertile soil. 46. Condition Score: 20 (o) No ashes or other refuse. (6) No weeds. Score: 15 (o) Lawn mowed; trees and shrubbery trimmed; flowers. 47. Fencing Score: 5 (o) Board or woven-wire field fence. (6) About 3K feet high. Score: (a) Barbed wire. (b) Same. Score: 5 (o) Heavy woven wire. (6) Same. 48. Walks Score: 10 (o) Gravel or cinder walks, well- drained, from road to building, building to well, etc., or (6) Board walks in good condition. Score: 5 (o) Cement walks. ' The orientation of a building is the direction from which light enters the class room, not the direction which the building faces. 35 The Standards — Continued 49. Playground apparatus Score: 25 (a) At least the following or equiv- alent apparatus: swing; sand pile; teeter board; horizontal bar; volley ball and net; base- ball and bat. Where school has not over 10 pupils less may be accepted. Score: 10 (a) In addition to min- imum: giant stride, basket ball and standards; slide. 50. Environment Score: 25 (a) Freedom from nuisances such as odors from barnyards, etc. (6) Freedom from dangers, such as railroads, high cliffs, dangerous bodies of water, etc. (c) A reasonably attractive view considering the opportunities of the vicinity in this respect. 51. Accessibility Score: 25 (a) Located near main highway. (&) As near center of district as possible but not over \% miles from farthest home except where transportation at public expense is provided. Modifications for Two-Teacher Buildings 16. Fuel room Score: 20 (a) Fuel room in basement located near furnace. Score: 10 (a) Outside fuel shed; well lighted; sub- stantial structure; painted to match school building. 24. Heat and ventilation (a) Type: Score: 30 (I) Furnace with provision for gravity exhaust of impure air. (6) Adequacy: Score: 30 (1) Maintain heat at 68° every part of the room. (o) Type: Score: 20 (1) Jacketed stove with provision for the bringing in of fresh air and the carrying out of impure air. 49. Playground apparatus Score: 25 (o) At least the following or the equivalent apparatus: sand pile; 2 swings; 2 teeter boards; horizontal bars; volley ball and net; baseball and bat. 2. A General Measure of These Buildings Table 1 shows the distribution of the one-teacher schools ac- cording to essential and additional credit. As may be seen, the median score is 608 + 14, that is, an essential standard score of 608 with an additional score of 14. These facts make it clear that the one-teacher school building in New York is far short of meeting 36 1-1 (N es <*) -M« ■i-c*O00>O— iiOTfOOs^ CS lO « lO fS Ml? OS (pn OU UU r* t^ '4.' "fc^ "J "J ^ir '«• fj v^ rs (TN •"• .I00>00i00i00i00'00»00»00>0, O^O^a000^-^>■»O«»O^O^'*COt^(SCN •^ ■* 37 standards that may be set as reasonable, and suggest a problem that should challenge the best effort of rural communities. Not only are the scores low in general but they show a remarkable de- gree of uniformity. Thus one-half the buildings are found between 543 + 4 and 674 -|- 23, a difference of only 131 + 19 points. Only .35 of 1 percent have a score of 900 or over and only 1.4 percent a score of under 400. It is of interest and significance to see how little the schools are entitled to in the way of additional credit. A school entirely modern as to construction and facilities provided would readily secure additional credit of from 275 to 300 points. ] Possible score I Actual score "-Addltlonal- 300 200 100 1 -teacher schools Diagram 2. — Median scores for one- and two-teacher buildings. The essen- tial standard score is indicated at the right of the heavy vertical line; the addi- tional score to the left of this line The two-teacher schools (Table 2) are better, though they, too, fall considerably short of the essential standards. The median score is 755 -j- 29, an improvement of 150 -f- 15, not counting certain higher standards required of the two-teacher buildings on a few items (see p. 36). The middle 50 percent of these schools is spread over a somewhat larger section of the scale, i. e., 166 -|- 39 as compared wit^ 131 -t- 19 in the one- teacher buildings. There is a larger percentage of buildings with a score of 900 or better — 9.1 percent. Here again the additional credit is small. 3. Problems in the Use of These General Measures In the interpretation of the scores given above two practical questions are likely to be raised. (1) What score should be set as the index of a reasonably satisfactory building? (2) What score 38 'b»^Oiro^«»»0*-< ■3 ■■a a o > lo o - cs M . es ^ ^ fO cs cs ^ tH ^ ^ M ^ ■<*< a + 111 11" H.OiOOtOOiOOiOOiOOiOOtOOiOti; + „ o a 01 ; •o 39 should be used as the standard for condemning buildings as pro- vided by law? (1) In connection with the first question it should be recalled that the essential standards were frankly planned so as to require only what is both desirable and attainable. It follows, then, that the goal of every community should be the 1,000 points of a perfect essential standard score. The progressive community will have its efforts shown by the additional points that it receives. (2) In a later section (II, C) it will be pointed out that one of the causes for the present situation is undoubtedly the indefiniteness of the law that provides for condemnation by the district superin- tendent. It is there suggested that the least that the state ought to accept is a total of 610 credits, these to be certain specified items (stated in II, C) without which the education of children is likely to suffer. 4. Are the Types or Facilities Provided in Accordance with Modern Hygienic Requirements? The scores given above show that in general New York one- and two-teacher buildings fall far short of meeting those requirements that now are rather commonly accepted for modern school build- ings of this size. In this and the following two sections will be presented more detailed evidence on this matter. It will be noticed that both for economy of space and effectiveness of comparison data regarding one- and two-teacher schools are presented together. The percentage of cases in which there were no data is given in order that the reader may form a conclusion as to the complete- ness of the data from which the percentages are computed. (a) Amount and Quality of Natural Lighting.— One of the first requirements for a school building is a sufficient amount of properly distributed light. The commonly accepted standard for such a climate as that of New York is that the glass area of the windows should be from one-fifth to one-fourth that of the floor area. The standard used in this survey was that the proportion should be at least one-fifth, or, where there is considerable shade, one-fourth. Table 3 shows how far short of this standard many schools fall. 4° Table 3. — Proportion that Glass Area is of Floor Space Percentage of All Schools Studied' Proportion One Teacher Two Teachers* 1:2 1.0% 2.9% 1:3 1.3 6.4 1:4 5.1 13.7 1:5 11.2 22.3 1.6 14.1 16.5 1:7 18.6 5.8 1:8 14.0 10.1 1:9 13.0 10.8 1:10 10.9 2.2 1:11 4.5 3.6 1:12 2.9 4.3 1:13 1.5 .7 1:14 9 .7 1:15 5 1:16 3 1:17 1 1:18 1 The median one- teacher school falls in the 1:7 group; the median two-teacher school, in the 1:6 group. The extremely low proportions found in both types of school cannot be excused no Percent i i i i i Diagram 3, Proportion that glass area is of floor space in one- and two- teacher schools. The standard is at least 1 : 5 matter what the cost may be to community or state for making the necessary improvements. ' The reader will recall that there were 1,438 one-teacher and 77 two-teacher schools. * In this and similar cases, where conditions may vary for each of the two class rooms, each room is counted as a unit. 41 Not only is the glass area too small in the majority of schools, but the shades used are commonly such as to reduce the amount of light that might otherwise be available. Thus Table 4 shows that Table 4. — Color and Type op Shades Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers I. Color: Translucent 14.0% 29.6% Opaque 86.0 70.4 II. Type: None 7.1% 6.7% Adjustable 0.0 2.6 Double roller 6 6.7 Single roller from bottom 6 6.7 Single roller from center 1 0.0 Single roller from top 91.1 77.3 Two or more kinds 5 0.0 86 percent of the one-teacher and 70.4 percent of the two-teacher schools have opaque shades and that it is almost universal to find a type of shade that cannot be moved from one part of the window as the angle from which the sun's rays come changes. The single roller fastened at the top is reasonably satisfactory when the sun is high, and the direct rays may be eliminated by shading a small Translucent l=teacher schools 2=teacher schools Diagram 4. — ^Translucency of shades in one- and two-teacher schools as indi- cated by the color section of the upper part of the window. It is highly unsatis- factory when the sun is low, for the reason that the shade must be pulled down to near the bottom of the window to shut out the rays. This, of course, reduces greatly the amount of light that enters the schoolroom. The situation is made still worse by the frequency with which broken shade rollers are found. It is not uncommon to find half the rollers in a building in such condition that either the 42 shades cannot be used at all or they remain from one-fourth to one-half the way down the window throughout the day. The quality of the light is also of considerable importance. Modern requirements call for lighting from one side only — the left. This prevents the casting of shadows by shoulders, hand, or pencil when considerable light comes from the pupil's rear or right. Lighting from both left and right tends to produce a reflection that is irritating to the eyes. Light in the rear is further harmful be- cause the teacher must face it a good part of the day, while light in the front, where all the pupils must face it constantly, is even more disastrous. Since most of New York's smaller school build- ings were erected at a time when such facts were not given great weight, it is to be expected that conditions will not be satisfactory. Table 5 gives the details. Table 5. — Window Placement Percentage of All Schools Studied Windows Placed One Teacher Two Teachers On left only 3.4% 23.3% On right only 0.0 0.0 On left and rear 8.7 39.4 On left and right 21.6 8.4 On right and rear 4 2.8 On left, right and rear 50.5 21.1 On left, right and front 3.6 0.0 On left, rear, and front 1.1 4.3 On right, rear, and front 2 .7 On left, rear, right and front 10.3 0.0 No data 2 0.0 Only 3.4 percent of the one-teacher schools meet the standard. The two-teacher schools are better, having 23.3 percent lighted from the left only. The next most satisfactory type of window place- ment, left and rear, exists in 8.7 percent and 39.4 percent of the cases respectively. A further study of the table will make it clear that the window placement is far better in the two-teacher schools. A situation affecting both the amount and the quality of the hghting is the color scheme. Dark colors are to be avoided because they absorb the light, while pure white causes undue reflection. The standard used in this study — ^"some light reflecting color, pleasing in its general effect" — is certainly none too high, yet as Table 29, item 8, shows, only 32 percent of the one-teacher schools 43 On 1 side r ^3^ 4 sidea^ 10?/ On 2 sides 3US y < Qa 3 sides One-teach er schools Two-teacher schools Diagram 5. — Window placement in one- and two-teacher schools. Light from one side is the standard receive 81 percent or more of complete essential standard credit. Only 1 percent approximate the ideal as to color scheme. (See Table 30.) (6) Heating and Ventilation. — ^The old-fashioned unjacketed stove, without facilities for distributing the heat, for receiving regularly a supply of fresh air, or for discharging the foul air, per- sists in New York state. However, 71.3 percent of the two-teacher schools have either a furnace or a jacketed stove. Table 6. — Type of Heating and Ventilating Apparatus Used Percentage of All Schools Studied Kind One Teacher Two Teachers Furnace 5.1% 56.0% Jacketed stove 8.7 15.3 Gas heater 2 0.0 Unjacketed stove 85.2 26.0 No data 8 2.7 As a result of the type of apparatus used, a large proportion of the schools depend upon window and door ventilation. Of the one-teacher schools, 83.3 percent have no fresh air intake and 80.3 percent have no foul air outlet. Of the two-teacher schools, 22 per- cent have no intake and 20 percent no outlet. Only 31 percent of the one-teacher schools have that necessary means for securing an impersonal test of the amount and the distribution of heat — a 44 Cas heater Fumace 5< Jacketed stove No data 2.7% One-teacher schools Two-teacher schools Diagram 6. — Types of heating apparatus in one- and two-teacher schools thermometer. The situation is much better in the two-teacher schools. Table 7. — Number of Thermometers in Schools Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers Yes 31.0% 69.3% No 69.0 30.7 (c) Water Supply and Drinking and Washing Facilities. — A supply of pure water with means for preventing contagion through proper provision for drinking and washing is a necessity. A neigh- bor's well is the common source. There is no objection to this if the water is pure and if it is not necessary to carry it too far. The Table 8. — Source of Water Supply for Schools Percentage of All Schools Studied Source One Teacher Two Teachers Water system 0.3% 8.0% Well on grounds 11.6 57.3 Neighbor's well under 200 yds 43.5 22.7 Neighbor's well 200 yds. or over. . . 30.8 12.0 Spring 12.1 0.0 Brook 2 0.0 No data 1.5 0.0 water is seldom analyzed so that the test of purity is a practical one — whether or not illness results. It is regrettable that the more economical test of analysis is not followed more frequently, espe- cially in view of the relatively large number of open springs that 45 Table 9. — Certain Conditions Affecting the Supply or Pure Water Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers I. Distance of well from possible source of contamination Under 50 feet 13.5% 6.7% 51-99 feet 14.5 4.0 100 feet or over 61.5 73.3 No data 10.5 16.0 II. Is well protected from surface drainage? Yes 77.2% 75.0% No 18.9 13.9 No data 3.9 11.1 III. Is water analyzed? Yes 1.4% 5.4% No 77.4 79.7 No data 21.2 14.9 are found in the state. Table 9 gives significant data bearing upon the question of contamination of water at its source. As to whether or not 100 feet from a possible source of contamination Table 10. — Means for Preventing Contagion Through Drinking or Washing Percentage of AU Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers I. Facilities for drinking Fountain 5.6% 24.3% Closed jar 41.2 39.8 Covered pail 3.1 0.0 Open jar or pail 42.8 12.8 Go to well 2.1 14.1 No data 2.1 9.0 None 3.1 0.0 II. Drinking cups Paper cups 1.8% 4.1% Individual cups 28.8 21.9 Either of these 49.9 46.6 Neither of these 16.6 15.1 No data 2.9 12.3 III. Are individual cups adequately protected when not in use? Yes 26.7% 29.0% No 68.2 49.3 Nodata 5.1 21.7 IV. Towels Paper 5.6% 10.7% Individual 3.6 0.0 Eitherofthese 17.8 24.0 Neither of these 61.4 64.0 Nodata 6.9 1.3 None 4.7 0.0 46 Percent of all schools studied One-teacher Two-teacher I. Facilities for Drinking II. Drinking Cups Paper or individual Neither of these No data III. Protection OF In- dividual Cups Not protected { ^f'l r Protected {jfl " No data !^2l'.^ " IV. Towels Neither paper / 61.4 I 64.0 nor individual \ 64.0 C Paper or 1 27.0 individual \34.7 C None No data / 4.7 1 1.0.0 / 6.9 I 1.3 J Diagram 7. — Drinking facilities and towels in one- and two-teacher schools 47 insures protection depends upon the nature of the soil and the slope of the ground, but it offers at least a tentative standard. The open water-pail, the common cup, and the common towel are still in evidence. Either paper cups or individual cups are found in a commendable percentage of schools, but unfortunately the good effect of this is offset by lack of proper protection for indi- vidual cups when not in use. A simple cabinet with a definite place assigned each pupil would make it unnecessary for cups to be kept upon or in the desks where dust can settle upon them. Most satisfactory of all is the water jar with attached bubbUng foimtain. The better grades of these can be secured for around $20 and in time will be considered as a necessary part of the schoolroom equip- ment. It is astonishing that paper towels are not more commonly used when one considers the extent to which they reduce the labor of laundering and insure the control of contagion from this source. The expenditure of the eight or ten dollars necessary to provide these towels for a school of 10 pupils is a genuine economy. Table 11. — Is Floor Oiled? Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers No 58.0% 32.0% Yes — where dry sweeping is used .. . 36.5 61.1 Yes— where compound is used 1.6 6.9 No data 3.9 0.0 Ho data 3.9^ l=te^LCher schools 2=teacher schools Diagram 8. — Oiled floors in one- and two-teacher schools 48 (d) Cleaning System. — Unhygienic methods of cleaning the schoolroom are common. The oiled floor is found in only 38.1 percent of the one-teacher and in 68 percent of the two-teacher schools. Dry sweeping and dry dusting are still the prevailing methods. Table 12. — Methods of Sweeping and Dusting Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers I. Sweeping Compound 4.3% 10.8% Dry 95.0 78.4 No data 7 10.8 II. Dusting Oiled cloth 9.5% 30.7% Damp cloth 10.6 9.3 Dry cloth 77.7 54.7 None 1.4 0.0 No data 8 5.3 SWEKPING DUSTINS No data- Compound- Ho data . None Oiled cloth-* &9^sj Damp cloth' Dry cloth - 1= teacher 2=teachex schools schools I'teacher Sftoacher schools schools Diagram 9. — Methods of sweeping and dusting in one- and two-teacher schools (e) First Aid Outfit. — Table 13 shows that only 10.3 percent of one-teacher and 12.2 percent of two-teacher schools have a first aid outfit of any kind. One hundred and eleven of the 146 one- teacher schools having these oufits are found in 6 supervisory dis- tricts, indicating what may be done through leadership. 4 49 The value of such an outfit for giving immediate attention to cuts, bruises, simple illnesses, etc., certainly justifies the expenditure of the three or four dollars involved. Table 13. — Number of Schools Having a First Aid Outfit Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers Yes 10.3% 12.2% No 89.7 87.8 (/) Toilets. — As a minimum standard for outdoor toilets the statutes require that at least two suitable and convenient water closets, entirely separated from each other and having separate means of access with the approaches separated by a substantial close fence not less than seven feet in height, must be provided in each school district. In 1916 an order was issued by the Department caUing attention to the unsatisfactory state of outdoor toilets and announcing that an approved system of sanitary closets would be reqiiired in the approval of plans for new buildings or for the remodeling of old buildings; that all public schools must be provided with such facilities before September 1, 1918, except where the schoolhouse is unfit for use and consolidation is to be expected or a contract entered into or where the district valuation is below $20,000 and the attendance small; and that where it becomes necessary to pro- vide new toilet facilities before that date, such facilities must be of the approved type. Four types are now included in the approved list: flush; dry closet; chemical; and a special form of the septic tank known as the L. R. S. toilet. The chemical is the type that has been receiving most attention in the small schools of the state and it is this type that is meant when the term sanitary is used. While many communities proceeded at once to meet the require- ment, there were a large number that did not. Some declined or neglected to do so because they considered such an order an undue exercise of state authority; some failed to see the need of improved conditions; some objected to the forms of toilets prescribed; some claimed financial inability on one ground or another even though districts under $20,000 valuation were not required to make such improvements. Whatever the reason assigned, it is clear that back so of it all was the failure of patrons to realize the necessity for remedy- ing existing conditions. Had the facts regarding conditions such as the present writer has seen — unclean, badly marked, poorly venti- lated and Ughted, with inadequate means of separating the sexes — been presented to parents, they would certainly have demanded improvement. The outdoor toilet still predominates in the one-teacher schools, as Table 14 indicates. The flush toilet is, of course, not feasible in Table 14. — Kinds or Toilets Percentages of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers Flush 0.3% 12.3% Sanitary 35.2 54.8 Outdoor 63.8 32.9 No data 7 Flush .35^. ,No data .7^ One-teacher schools Two-teacher schools Diagram 10. — Kinds of toilets in one- and two-teacher schools many schools in the open country because of the heavy expense for installing pressure tanks. Is the sanitary toilet an improvement? There are at least eight important ends that are to be desired in any system of toilets: (1) CleanUness; (2) control of the spread of disease through flies, etc. ; (3) facilities that do not permit weather conditions to become a deterrent to the full use of those facilities; (4) freedom from de- facement; (5) easy control by the teacher; (6) complete seclusion; (7) sufficient ventilation; (8) sufficient light. Facts collected in the scoring of buildings throw light upon the effectiveness of attaining certain of these ends through different types of toilets. Thus Table 14A shows decidedly better conditions Table 14A. — Comparison of the ErrEcrrvENESS of Difperent Types or Toilets as to Seclusion, Lighting, Ventilation, and General Con- dition Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers Chemical Outdoor Flush Chemical Outdoor Flush 1. Is there sufficient seclusion? Yes 93.2% 5.2 1.6 95.5% 3.8 .7 91.2% 7.8 1.0 88.6% 10.2 1.2 57.5% 40.4 2.1 29.7% 68.5 1.8 25.3% 72.7 2.0 25.7% 73.3 1.0 100% 100% 100% 100% 92,7% 2.4 4.9 100% 95.1% 4.9 88.0% 12.0 69.6% 30.4 47.8% 52.2 43.5% 56.5 34.8% 65.2 100% No No data 2. Are they well lighted? Yes 100% No . No data 3. Are they well ventilated? Yes No 87.5% 12 5 No data 4. General condition Satisfactory . . . Unsatisfactory No data 87.5% 12.5 regarding seclusion, hght, ventilation, and general condition where there are sanitary toilets. It is also clear that conditions are not perfect where this type is found. The reason for the showing on seclusion, lighting, and ventila- tion is undoubtedly due in large part to the requirements that the state has set for the installation of the sanitary toilet. These are: " 1. The closet or toilet must be in a room attached to and made a part of the school building. 52 " 2. The walls and ceiling of this room must be constructed and finished in like manner as other rooms of the building. "3. In all cases the rooms must be well lighted and ventilated. "4. Toilet rooms must be heated in all cases where it is prac- ticable to do so. "5. Before constructing sanitary closets, a simple sketch of the rooms and approaches and a description of the closet must be submitted to the State Department of Education for approval. SOFFICIENT SiXLUSION S'teacher schools Flush toilet lOOHHBIMHI^BB^HB inn c^rr— T. . . — Chemical toilet 93 ■■■i^H^HHBi m i — Outdoor toilet SBWI^^mttm •'fi t « WBX LIGHTED Flush toilet 100 ■■^■^^■IHH^ 100 C Chemical toilet 96^H^^HHi^l^a 100 C Outdoor toilet 30HHM 47^ Flush toilet lOOi^HBi^^HI^^H bhi i Chemical toilet 91 ■■■■■■■■^ f>^ ' —-> Outdoor toilet 25HBB 44 C GEHERAL COHDITIOH SATISFACTOinr Flush toilet lOO^HHHHIHHHB 88 C Chemical toilet 89 1 Outdoor toilet 261 Diagram 11. — Effectiveness of different kinds of toilets in one- and two-teacher schools "6. Provision must be made for the ventilation of receptacles by means of ventilators extending through the roof. "7. There must be a thoroughly well-lighted, ventilated ap- proach or anteroom leading to the closet from the schoolroom or common corridor or hallway of the building. If of sufficient size, the anteroom may serve also as coat room. "8. All receptacles must be of a type to be emptied outside of S3 class rooms, recitation rooms, hallways and toilet rooms, and the construction must be such as to facilitate this process. "9. The vaults must be tight so as to render the entrance of flies, mosquitoes and other insects absolutely impossible. " 10. Seats must be hinged and made to close automatically." Similar results as to these three factors could be secured through the outdoor toilet if proper care were taken. As the facts show, however, it is far from unusual to find such toilets completely without ventilation, except such as comes through general diffu- sion; without light, except that which may come through the door or cracks due to ill-fitting boards; and without seclusion, because they face directly upon the road, because the toilets of the two sexes are placed practically together, or because some of the boards in the close fence of the approaches have not been replaced. We thus see again the need of properly enforced state standards or an aroused public opinion. Of the eight ends set up as desirable, numbers 5, 7 and 8 may be secured through proper methods of installation (plus, in the case of ventilation, proper care in deodorizing) whether the sanitary or the outdoor type is used. Niunbers 1 and 4 are largely a matter of care on the part of the children and the community and so may be accomplished through either tjrpe, though the better control possible in the case of the sanitary toilet will affect somewhat the tendency to defacement. Numbers 3 and 5 alone seem to be entirely dependent upon the type. The sanitary toilet, which under the New York requirements must be a part of the building, is heated at least indirectly; the outdoor, of course, not at all under ordinary conditions. No proof can be offered as to the extent to which ill health in later life is traceable to the reluctance on the part of children to use the toilet fully during bad weather, but it is probably considerable. It is clear, however, that the sanitary toilet, being within doors, is more fully under teacher con- trol. Nvunber 2 is secured partly through care and partly through type. The outdoor closet, when lime or similar material is regularly used, becomes less of a menace through the spread of disease, but it does not equal the properly cared for sanitary toilet in this respect. S4 In brief, then, the situation is this: Seclusion, light, and ventila- tion may be secured through either type of toilet, depending upon the plans of installation and, in the case of ventilation, upon the exercise of reasonable care. Comparison shows clearly superior conditions at present under the sanitary type due probably to specific requirements of the Department of Education. Analysis indicates decided advantages for the sanitary toilet through better control of the spread of disease, through better teacher control, and through the practical elimination of weather as a factor in the use of the toilet. Cleanliness and prevention of defacement may be secured by either type, depending upon the care and attention given the matter. In securing cleanliness the sanitary toilet probably demands more care. It cannot be neglected without serious consequences. Because of the chemicals used it is also more expensive, though this expense is small. If a person were employed to inspect and care for a number of the sanitary toilets, greater efiEectiveness would undoubtedly result. Such evidence as is available seems to point to the superiority of the sanitary over the outdoor toilet, but it should be emphasized that it is not the use of any particular kind that is important but the attainment of certain desirable ends. The state of New York has a splendid opportunity to test, through actual operation, the two types. Progressive communities will be alert in securing the control of those factors that will most fully protect the health and morals of school children. (g) Pupils' Desks. — Modern desks are the exception. The Table 15. — Types of Pupils' Desks Percentage of All Schools Studied Type One Teacher Two Teachers Movable chair-desk 0.1% 2.4% Single adjustable 1.6 3.6 Single non-adjustable 32.9 44.6 Double non-adjustable 56.2 26.5 Home made 3 0.0 Two kinds 8.7 16.9 Three kinds 1 3.6 No data 1 2.4 new movable chair-desk that permits informal grouping of pupils, and the use of the class room for other than regular instructional 55 TYPE OF DESK Double non-adjustable 26!! C Per cent l=teacher ^2=teaoher Ischools I I school 3 '52 Q ^ Single non-adjustable 44I6C 1.61 3.6a 0.3 1 0.0 0.11 2.4 a 8.7 ^H JK.yi ■ 1 0.11 3.6ia single adjustable Home nade Movable chair-desk Tiro kinds Three kinds No data ^'}L Diagram 12. — Types of pupils' desks in one- and two-teacher schools Table 16 — Adjustment of Seats and Desks Percentage of All Schools Studied Percentage Seats Not Properly Desks Not Properly Distance Between Desk and Seat of All Seats Adjusted Adjusted Incorrect in School One Two One Two One Two Teacher Teachers Teacher Teachers Teacher Teachers 32.6% 48.9% 32.5% 47.6% 27.9% 40.3% 1-9% 2.7 3.7 2.5 2.4 1.8 1.2 10-19 9.9 18.3 8.4 17.1 4.8 3.7 20-29 16.4 14.6 17.0 11.0 7.0 7.3 30-39 9.0 1.2 6.8 4.9 2.9 2.4 40-49 5.4 2.4 6.0 2.4 2.6 2.4 50-59 10.9 6.1 10.3 7.3 9.3 17.1 60-69 2.5 1.2 3.0 2.4 2.6 1.2 70-79 1.4 1.2 2.2 1.2 3.5 1.2 80-89 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.3 2.4 90-99 .2 0.0 .2 0.0 2.8 1.2 100 2.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 29.1 15.9 No data 5.6 2.4 6.9 3.7 3.4 3.7 S6 Table 17. — Kind or Blackboard Percentage of All Schools Studied Kind One Teacher Two Teachers Slate 34.9% 57.6% Composition 11.6 1.4 Painted boards 34.0 11.1 Painted plaster 1.8 1.4 All others 1.0 13.2 Combinations Slate and composition 3.0% 2.8% Slate and boards 6.3 7.6 Slate and plaster 4 0.0 Composition and boards 2.5 1.4 Composition and plaster 3 0.0 All other combinations 4.2 3.5 KIND OF BUCKBOAED Slate PalDted boards Composition Painted plaster All others COMBINATIONS Slate and boards Slate aiid composition Composition and boards Slate and plaster Composition and plaster All other combinations PER CENT OF ALL SCHOOLS STUDIED ■■ l=teacher ' — ' 2=teacher 6.3 §■ 7.61= 3.0 ■ 2.8 a 2.5 1 1.4 D 0.4 1 0.0 0.3 1 0.0 4.2 Hi 3.5 a Diagram 13. — Kinds of blackboard in one- and two-teacher schools 57 purposes, is almost unknown. In one-teacher schools the old double non-adjustable desk is still the most common type. Table 16 gives information regarding the lack of proper seating arrangements found in each school on the day it was scored. This table is so arranged as to show the percentage of schools having a certain percentage of desks or seats not properly adjusted. Thus in 32.6 percent of the one-teacher and in 48.9 percent of the two- teacher schools none of the seats were not properly adjusted. Table 18. — Minimum Height of Blackboard Percentage of All Schools Studied Height One Teacher Two Teachers Under 26 inches 6.7% 2.7% 26 inches 1.7 4.7 27 " 3.1 6.0 28 " 3.3 4.0 29 " 1.0 4.7 30 " 14.4 13.5 31 " 3.0 2.7 32 " 6.4 4.0 33 " 4.8 3.4 34 " 4.7 8.1 35 " 3.1 1.3 36 " 31.5 28.2 37 " 2.4 0.0 38 " 3.1 6.0 39 " 1.6 1.3 40 " 3.5 3.4 41 " 7 0.0 42 " 3.3 4.7 43 " 5 0.0 44 " 1 1.3 45 " 5 46 " 2 48 " 4 Median = 35 inches 34 inches Several interesting summaries may be made from this table, of which one is that one-half or more of the seats are not properly adjusted in 18.4 percent of the one-teacher and in 8.5 percent of the two- teacher schools; one-half or more of the desks are not properly adjusted in 19.9 percent of the one-teacher and in 10.9 percent of the two- teacher schools; and one-half or more of the seats and desks are not correctly placed as to distance between them in 49.6 percent of the one-teacher and in 39 percent of the two-teacher schools. S8 Seats and desks of the same size should be placed together. Instead, we often find that several sizes are found in each row, the small desks being placed toward the front, the large toward the rear. This is almost certain to mean maladjustment for the child. In 42 percent of the one-teacher and in 24.4 percent of the two- teacher schools the seats and desks are not arranged according to Inches 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 j y > r^ ^ "J , t 1 10 20 Per cent 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Diagram 14. — Height of lowest blackboard in one-teacher schools. The dotted line shows suitable height when there is but one height of blackboard size. A little labor in rearrangement would adjust most of these situations. ih) Blackboards. — ^A very important part of the building commonly neglected in the one-teacher schools is the blackboard. Only 49.5 percent of the one-teacher and 61.8 percent of the two- 59 teacher schools have either a composition or a slate blackboard entirely. Painted boards are all too common, especially in the one- teacher schools. These soon become a disgrace: the individual boards warp and draw apart, leaving gaps, while the paint soon wears off. Other types of blackboards found include painted plaster, slated canvas, oilcloth, and painted cloth. The height at which blackboards are placed indicates a lack of forethought on the pa,rt of those who installed them. Table 18 shows that in the one-teacher schools the median height is 35 inches for the lowest blackboard in the school. In the two-teacher schools the situation is about the same. This is entirely too high for the smaller children, so that either the board is not so fully utilized as it ought to be by them or it is necessary to provide a bench for them to stand on while at the board. The inconvenience and the danger of the latter procedure are obvious. The number of linear feet of blackboard given in Table 19 is, for the two-teacher schools, the average of that found in the two class rooms. Table 19. — Number of Linear Feet of Blackboard Percentage of All Schools Studied Number of Feet One Teacher Two Teachers 2-3.9 0.1% 0.0% 4-5.9 8 0.0 6-7.9 4.0 1.4 8-9.9 6.6 1.4 10-11.9 8.9 .7 12-13.9 11.4 4.1 14-15.9 12.2 2.7 16-17.9 8.6 .7 18-19.9 9.0 9,5 20-21.9 8.0 8.2 22-23.9 6.7 6.8 24-25.9 5.7 8.8 26-27.9 4.3 2.0 28-29.9 2.1 5.4 30 and over 10.9 48.3 No data 7 Median = 16.4 feet 29.4 feet 5. Ark the Facilities Provided Such as Enable the School TO Perform in Full Its Function in the Community? (a) Play Facilities. — Rural children have no other opportunity to learn to play equal to that which they have at school. For this 6o Per cent 100 75 50 25 — ^ N ft 1 1 1 1 1 — 1= teacher schools — • 2= teacher .schools \ \ **, •••_ \ \ \ ft ft '•-.. '. ■z •a Li 0} v V V *... * I • « t t • \ a \ « ^ — ^.. s ••• ■■" 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Square rods Diagram IS. — Percentage of one- and two-teacher schools having a playground area equal to or greater than the amount shown Table 20. — Size of School Groxtnds Percentage of All Schools Studied Number of Square Rods One Teacher Two Teachers Under 10 square rods 4.1 0.0 10-19 8.4 4.1 20-29 13.1 4.1 30-39 11.9 1.4 40-49 16.6 9.6 50-59 5.6 2.7 60-69 6.3 2.7 70-79 3.5 4.1 80-89 12.4 11.0 90-99 1.4 2.7 100-109 2.6 2.7 110-119 6 1.4 120-129 2.6 6.8 130-139 3 1.4 140-149 5 0.0 150-159 3 1.4 160-169 6.5 27.4 170-199 3 0.0 200-229 3 2.7 230 and over 2.3 13.8 No data 4 0.0 Median = 47 square rods 125 square rods 6i reason it is important that certain minimum essentials be pro- vided. One requirement should be for sufl&cient space. The standard for this was set at 160 square rods because a careful planning showed that approximately this amount of ground would provide for the location of the schoolhouse, some trees and shrub- bery, a small lawn, and a place for such games as tennis or volley ball, one old cat, pom-pom pull away, and for such play apparatus as are suggested in the essential standards. It is found, however, that very few (9.4 percent) of the one-teacher schools meet the standard, although almost half (43.9 percent) of the two-teacher Table 21. — Playground Apparatus Percentage of All Schools Studied Apparatus One Teacher Two Teachers None 84.0% 67.5% Swing 2.1 7.8 Teeter board 8 3.8 Volleyball 1.6 7.8 Volley ball and net 9 0.0 Baseball 5.6 9.1 Bat 1.9 7.8 Handball 1.3 2.6 Croquet set 3 1.3 Slide 3 1.3 Basket-ball only 6 10.4 Both basket-ball and standards 4 0.0 Horizontal bar 2.1 5.2 Bean bags 3.5 0.0 Quoits 2.0 1.3 Football 1.1 1.3 Gloves 3 0.0 Jumping poles 1 1.3 Jumping rope 5 1.3 All others 6 9.1 schools meet it. Since most of the schoolhouses were located and built when the need for play facilities was not recognized, it is easy to understand the reason for the situation. As it is, children must now generally use the road, with the constant danger from auto- mobiles, except in the most remote districts, or the neighbor's field. Either alternative should, of course, be avoided. The playground apparatus, too, is generally lacking. Eighty- four percent of the one-teacher and 67.5 percent of the two-teacher schools have none. A study of Table 21 will show the kinds of apparatus found and the percentage of schools having each kind. 62 Table 22 shows how these pieces of apparatus are distributed. Of the one-teacher schools, 85 have one piece, 54 have 2 pieces, 42 have 3 pieces, etc. Table 22. — Distribution or Play Apparatus One-Teacher Two-Teacher Number Pieces Schools Schools 1 85 8 2 54 7 3 42 3 4 10 2 5 2 2 6-10 1 (b) Bulletin Board. — A definite and convenient place for show- ing pictures, clippings, etc., of interest to the pupils or for displaying meritorious work of the school is becoming an almost indispensable part of the class-room equipment. Most one- and two-teacher schools have nothing of the sort except where mouldings or win- Table 23. — Bulletin Board Facilities Percentage of All Schools Studied Kind One Teacher Two Teachers Cork carpet 3.9% 0.0% Beaver board or similar material ... 4.4 2.6 Wood covered with burlap 8 1.3 Wood 0.0 3.9 Burlap or similar material 13.1 31.2 All others 2.6 3.9 No data 6 1.3 None 74.8 55.8 dow-frames are utilized. Cork carpet, beaver board or similar ma- terial, and soft wood covered with burlap are the most satisfactory materials for bulletin boards. (c) Artificial Lighting and Other Conveniences. — Arti- ficial lights, too, are seldom provided, and where this is done, the facilities are often insufficient. Eighty-five and seven-tenths per- Table 24. — Kind of Artificial Lighting Provided Percentage of All Schools Studied Kind One Teacher Two Teachers Electricity 0.5% 20.0% Gas 1.2 1.3 Oil lamps 12.1 20.0 None 85.7 58.7 No data 5 0.0 63 cent of the one-teacher schools and 58.7 percent of the two-teacher schools have no artificial lighting, while in those having some pro- /Eleotrlclty O.SJJ Gas l.ajSv /No data 0.5^ ^J* Gas I.35S l^teacher schools 3=teacher schools Diagram 16. — Kinds of artificial lighting in one- and two-teacher schools vision it is not sufficient in 42.5 percent of the one- teacher and in 22.6 percent of the two-teacher schools. A telephone, a necessity in most modern farm homes, is unusual in the school. While not nearly so important as many other things, the telephone becomes more than a convenience in cases of severe illness. Table 25.^Schools Having a Telephone Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers Yes 0.2% 0.0% No 99.8 100.0 A teacher's room, likewise, is rare. Such a room, where the teacher may have privacy and an opportunity to relax once or twice during the day, would contribute to her efficiency and happi- ness. Modern schools are beginning to recognize this. Table 26.- Yes. No. -Schools Having a Teacher's Room Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers 0.3% 2.7% 99.7 97.3 64 (d) Special Rooms. — ^With the broadening of the curriculum is coming a demand for proper faciUties for teaching these newer subjects. A progressive rural school will have not only one or more work rooms for teaching the elements of home making and manual training, but a room where children may play when the weather makes outdoor recreation impossible, and a neighborhood room where the people of the district may come together for social, literary, or civic purposes. Table 27 indicates that these facilities Table 27. — Special Rooms Percentage of All Schools Studied Room One Teacher , Two Teachers Yes No Yes No Work room 0.6% 1.3 .5 99.4% 98.7 99.5 8.0% 20.0 9.3 92.0% 80.0 90.7 are seldom foimd in New York one-teacher schools. They do exist in a number of two-teacher schools. If class rooms were equipped with the movable desk-chair instead of the ordinary stationary desks, they could be used for either play or neighborhood activities. 6. Does the District Keep Its Existing Facilities in Such Condition that the Maxiiium of Educational Efficiency May be Secured? This question has already been answered in part. Table 10 shows that unsanitary methods of drinking and washing are per- mitted in many schools; Tables 11 and 12, that unhygienic methods of cleaning are still followed; Table 16, that even such desks as are now in the schools are sometimes not so arranged as to reduce mal- adjustment to the minimum; and Table 18, that blackboards very frequently are placed too high for the smaller children. Further evidence is presented in Table 28. This table shows the percentage S 6S of cases in which the condition (for definition and method of mea- surement see p. 23) of certain items was satisfactory and unsatis- factory. All these facts indicate that even such facilities as are provided Table 28.— CoNDITIO^ OF Certain Items in the Building Percentage of All Schools Studied One Teacher Two Teachers S U No Data S U No Data Shades 41.6% 54.5 57.3 63.4 66.6 64.1 81.3 63.6 48.8 57.0% 41.9 41.9 36.0 32.7 34.0 17.9 34.8 44.6 1.4% 3.6 .8 .6 .7 1.9 .8 1.6 6.6 47.3% 66.3 79.3 84.4 79.2 91.8 93.2 63.6 53.8 52.7% 27.5 20.7 15.6 19.5 6.8 5.5 30.9 15.4 0.0% Desks 6.2 Blackboards Floor 0.0 0.0 Walls 1.3 Foundation Roof 1.4 1.3 Fencing 5.5 Play apparatus 30.8 I Satisfactory- Par cent ■ Un3atl3fa.ctoiy ^^No data l=teacher schools Roof 61 ■Ill Walls 66 i ■33^ Foundation 64 ■34H Floor 63 ■ 36^ Fencing 63 ■ 35^ Blackboards 57 142^ Desks 54 H |42^I 1 Play apparatus ii^m^m 1 Shades 43 Ji ■I? ^■1 2 =teacher schools hi 93 1 79 1 n 92 bi 84 1 [_ 1 ■311 ■^ 64 79 r_^ ' m 66 1 I 1 WTstfUf 3 '^ 54 \ 1 IW^^I 'I ...1 Diagram 17. — Condition of certain items in one- and two-teacher buildings 66 are not kept in such condition as to contribute fully to accomplish- ing the purpose of those facilities in the school. Such facts are a serious indictment of district control as it is now exercised in typical sections of the state. Whether this control should be taken away from the community or whether it would be possible, through leadership, to stimulate the community to manage, without detri- ment to the schools, such objective affairs as these is a problem of fundamental importance. The question is considered in detail in a later section (II B). 7. In What Respects Are the Buildings Strong and in What Are They Weak? In Table 29 is presented a distribution, by percentages, of the. essential standard credit assigned the various items of the building. Thus, on the factor of size of class room, there are none in the one- teacher schools that receive as low as 20 percent of the full value allowed; 2 percent receive from 21-40 percent of full value; 4 percent, 41-60 percent; 17 percent, 61-80 percent; 77 percent, 81-100 percent. Only one-third of the total number of one-teacher schools studied is here represented, every third score card in the list being chosen for analysis. Since the schools had been kept together by super- visory districts, a thoroughly representative selection was assured. All of the two-teacher buildings were included. 8. On What Points do the Buildings Receive Additional Credit? Table 30 is based upon the same schools studied in Table 29, but here the credits are indicated in terms of actual values. The largest amounts of additional credit go, in the one-teacher schools, for size of class room, floor, and flag and pole. Where a blank is found in the "none" column this means that the standards required for essential credit are such as to make it unlikely that further improve- ment will be found in schools of this size. In the two-teacher schools the largest additional credits go to size of class room, floor, clock, flag and pole, and architectural appearance. A careful study of the table will show to what extent each item has a tendency 67 to meet more than the essential standards and how these tendencies compare in the two types of schools. Table 29. — Percentage Distribution of Essential Standard Credit I. The class room 1. Size 2. Shape 3. Window placement. . , 4. Glass area 5. Shades 6. Floor 7. Walls 8. Color scheme 9. Inside finish 10. Blackboard 11. Bulletin board 12. Desks 13. Seating arrangement. 14. Closet 15. Clock II. Other rooms or room fa- cilities 16. Fuel room 17. Cloak room 19. Store room 20. Library III. General service equip- ment 24. Heating and ventilation 26. Cleaning system . . . , 27. Water supply 28. Artificial lighting 29. Toilets 31. Bell 32. First aid 33. Mail box 34. Flag and pole IV. The building in general 35. Vestibule 36. Material of construc- tion 37. Foundation 38. Roof 39. Condition of repair . . . 40. Location on grounds . 41. Orientation V. The grounds 43. Size 44. Shape 45. Slope and drainage . . . . 46. Condition 47. Fencing 48. Walks 49. Playground apparatus . 50. Environment 51. Accessibility One Teacher — Percent 15 61-80 4 41 13 8 2 2 3 22 3 10 7 30 33 3 54 14 44 3 24 10 77 47 8 23 5 46 22 32 62 28 8 17 17 10 37 32 20 7 34 13 15 U 4 38 85 8 6 60 59 51 77 35 70 44 11 78 56 38 35 3 67 77 Two Teachers — Percent 21-40 41-60 68 I THE CLASS BOOU I Size 9 iDslda tlnlah 3 Shaj>a 6 Floor 8 Color sohama 13 Seating arrangement 10 Blackboards IS Desks 7 Vails 4 Glass area 3 VlQila* placement 5 Sbades 14 Closets 15 Clock II Bulletin board II OTHER HOCUS, FACILITIES 20 Library 16 Fuel room 17 Cloak room 19 Store room III GENERAL SERVICE EQOIPMENT 31 Bell 34 Flag and pole 29 Toilets 27 Water supply 24 Heating & ventilation 26 Cleaning system 28 Artificial lighting 32 First aid 33 Uall box IV THE BHILDING III GHIERAL 38 Bool 40 Location on grounds 37 Foundation 36 Uaterlal ot construct. 39 Condition oi repair 41 Orientation 35 Vestibule V THE GROUNDS 44 Shape 51 Accessibility BO Qivlronmant 45 Slops and drainage 46 Condition 43 Size 47 Fencing 48 Walks 49 Playground apparatus ■ I'teacher r i 2:teacher Per cent 20 40 60 S O 1 00 Diagram 18. — Median score of one- and two-teacher buildings on each of the items required for essential standard credit. The median is interpreted in terms of the percentage of a perfect essential standard score that is attained 69 Table 30. — Distribution of Additional Credit Among the Various Items One Teacher 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 Two Teachers I. The class room 1. Size 2. Shape 3. Window placement 4. Glass area 5. Shades 6. Floor 7. Walls 8. Color scheme 9. Inside finish 10. Blackboard 11. Bulletin board 12. Desks 13. Seating arrange- ment 14. Closet 15. Clock II. Other rooms 16. Fuel room 17. Cloak room. . . . 18. Work room. . . . 19. Store room. .... 20. Library 21. Teachers' room . 22. Play room 23. Neighborhood room . III. General service equip- ment 24. Heat and ventilation 25. Fire extinguisher. . . . 26. Cleaning system .... 27. Water supply 28. Artificial lighting . . . 29. Toilets 30. Telephone 31. Bell 32. First aid 33. Mail box 34. Flag and pole IV. The building in general 35. Vestibule 36. Material of construc- tion 37. Foundation 38. Roof 39. Condition 40. Location on grounds. 41. Orientation 42. A r c h i tectural ap- pearance V. The grounds 43. Size 44. Shape 45. Slope and drainage , . 46. Condition 47. Fencing 48. Walks 49. Playground appar- atus 50. Environment 51. Accessibility Other items 32 72 40 15 88 70 9. Does the Community Protect Its Property Adequately? The state law gives authority to the trustee or the Board of Education to insure the schoolhouse and its equipment. In general this is done, as data given in Table 31 indicate. This table is based upon the schools of 12 supervisory districts for which com- plete data regarding insurance were available. It will be noticed that there are 7 percent of the 483 buildings that are not insured — a risk that no community ought to assiune. While it is true that schoolhouses do not burn frequently, this does happen often enough to serve as a warning. Thus in 26 supervisory districts from which information was secured 17 had had no losses by burning in five years, but in the 9 other supervisory districts 11 buildings had burned during that time. In at least one of these 11 cases there was no insurance. It would appear, too, from the facts given in Table 31, that, even though the buildings are sadly deficient in most cases for educational purposes, they are sometimes insured for less than their actual sale value. District superintendents frequently express an opinion that this is the case. Differences in value for buildings of the same quality appear in Table 31 that cannot be explained entirely by the location of schoolhouses as near to or far from places that make the property more salable. Apparently an important factor is whether or not the trustee secures the total insurance that will be allowed by the insuring company. B. BUILDINGS WITH THREE OR MORE TEACHERS 1. How THE Facts Were Collected Here again the score card method was used, the Strayer-Engle- hardt score card for city school buildings being employed. Since this score card and its standards are now widely known, they are not reproduced here. The greater complexity of this score card did not make it feasible to train a large number of district superintendents. Accordingly four experienced men — Dr. R. M. Stewart, Cornell University; Supt. M. G. Nelson, Delaware Co.; Supt. L. J. Cook, Ontario Co.; Supt. F. A. Beardsley, Tompkins Co. — were secured. Two days were spent in preparation for the work. Two buildings of quite n i s n \nox 1 • 00 es T 4^ CM SO 1-1 t^ ro 1-1 oo 1 ^ ooo'ef WAQ CM so i/^ tH ■^ ooo'e$ ,-H -^ to 666'Z-006'Z:| 668'2-008'Z$ 66i'Z-00Z'2$ 669t-009'2l : ^ ^ 66S'2-00S'Zt i-t ■ M CD 66^'3-OOf''Z5t i-i 1-1 66£'z-ooe'zf 66Z'Z-00Z'3$ ▼H -^ 66T'Z-00I'3$ ' 1 660'Z-000'Zf ■^ w 1-^ tJh (r> SO 666' 1-006' t J ■^ i-( 668'T-008'Tt cs CM 66i'l-00i'T$ - CM CM 669'I-009'I$ ^ CS i-H 1-1 lO 66?'l-00S'Tf CO O CM '-I T-H CM 66i''T-00t'Tt Tf CM ■ - SO 66e'T-O0f'Tl 66Z'T-00Z'Tt ■r-H Tt< so CM ^ CM 66l'T-00T'Tl • 1-H . ■ - ^ 660'T-000'Tf ^ O 00 CN i>- cs ^ CN ■^ O O ■ 666-006$ ■ CO t^ ■<-< »-i 668-0081 ^ OO O lO ^ 66i-O0i$ (M ^ fO lO OJ 669-009$ PO lO 'O r^ r^ "^ OS so 66S-00SI i-^^g^ o 66^^it'$ . -^ uo On (N s 66e-ooe$ ■.-t CN OS '^ 'H i-H lO 66Z-00Z$ C3 Csl -. 66T-00Tf OOTI ^ap^n 9DUBjnSUI 0^ •«* On •«* t^ ■ CD 8 i i i 1 8; 1 Os OS 0\ 13 72 different types were scored, through which experience uniform methods of recording data were developed, possible misinterpre- tations of standards were cleared up, and values to be assigned for situations not specifically stated in the standards, yet commonly found in New York, were agreed upon. 2. The Scores Table 32 gives a distribution of the scores assigned. In order to facilitate analysis and comparison the schools are divided into three classes: those of three and four teachers; of five to nine teachers; of 10 teachers and over. The results will be stated in percentages so that the reader should keep in mind the total num- ber of schools involved: 31 of the 3-4 teacher group; 70 of the 5-9 group; 45 of the 10 -|- group. While this division is more or less arbitrary, it does recognize types sufficiently different to justify the use of somewhat different standards. Accordingly the scores here presented have been adjusted (Table 33) so as to make a Table 32. — Original Score for Schools of Three or More Teachers Score Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-f Teachers 0-49 6:s% 6.5 16.1 16.1 16.1 6.5 6.5 22.5 3.2 Qi= " 387 Median = 465 Qa = 603 1-4% 4.3 5.8 10.0 18.6 8.6 15.7 20.0 4.3 4.3 5.7 1.4 459 554 626 50-99 100-149 150-199 200-249 250-299 300-349 350-399 400-449 2.2% 450-499 2.2 500-549 8.9 550-599 17.8 600-649 15.6 650-699 11.1 700-749 11.1 750-799 11.1 800-849 11.1 850-899 8.9 900-949 950-999 1000 583 665 777 73 comparison of the groups more fair. This adjustment has been of two kinds: (1) Certain allowances were made individual schools because of function or t3^e of construction.' (2) Other allow- Table 33. — Adjusted Score jor Buildings of Three and More Teachers Percentage of All Schools Studied Score Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-h Teachers 0-49 6^5% 3.2 9.7 16.1 16.1 12.9 3.2 6.5 19.4 3.2 3.2 Q,= ■■ 467 Median = 545 Qs = 702 1^4% 4.3 4.3 11.4 12.9 10.0 10.0 18.6 11.4 5.7 4.3 4.3 1.4 514 628 709 50-99 100-149 150-199 200-249 250-299 300-349 350-399 400-449 2.2% 450-499 2.2 500-549 8.9 550-599 17.8 600-649 15.6 650-699 11.1 700-749 11.1 750-799 11.1 800-849 850-899 11.1 8.9 900-949 950-999 .... 1,000 + 584 665 778 • The following allowances were made in the case of individual schools: (1) Three and four teachers (a) Stairways and corridors in buildings of one story. (b) Fireproofness in buildings of one story. (c) Laboratories in buildings housing grades not higher than the eighth. (2) Five to nine teachers (a) Fire escapes in building under three stories. (b) Exit lights where there are no fire escapes. (c) Study halls in buildings housing grades not above the sixth. (d) Laboratories where there are no grades above the eighth. For buildings of ten teachers or over no adjustments are made. In a few cases, e. g., heating system and toilets, some internal changes in the standard^! — not merely eliminations of items — might be attempted, but the task of making such adjustment was so complex Jbecause of lack of generally accepted standards for different types of buildings that it was decided to leave the standards as stated by the authors. The advantage of this is, of course, that we have a common basis for interpreting situations. 74 ances were made the schools as a group, on the grounds that such requirements would be quite unusual.' The reasons for such modifications will be apparent without further explanation than the information given in the footnotes. Present knowledge does not enable us to state such differences on a scientifically exact basis, but the writer is convinced that the dis- tinctions here made are in general valid. With the modifications thus definitely stated, the reader familiar with the Strayer-Engle- hardt score card is enabled to make such further changes as he may think desirable. A word should be said regarding the method of making these adjustments. An illustration will be clearest. One school received 362 points on the basis of the standards as they are. Items with a credit of 70 points were not required on basis 1 (p. 74) ; on basis 2 140 points were allowed, since this is a four-teacher school. To- gether there are 210 of the 1,000 points not required of this build- ing. Clearly these 210 points cannot be added to the original score of 362, since to do so would be to assume that if these items were present they would be present in complete compliance with the standards — an assumption quite unjustified. What should be done is to interpret the original 362 points in terms of the number of points now required for a perfect score in this building, that is, * The group allowances made were: Three to Four Five to Nine Teachers Teachers Score Score Fans and motors 10 10 Special provisions 5 5. Escapes 20 Fire doors and partitions 10 10 Exit lights 5 Mechanical service system 10 10 Auditorium 15 15 Study hall 5 Gjonnasium 10 10 Swimming pool 5 5 Lunch room 10 Officer's room 10 Music room 10 10 Janitor's room 5 5 Lecture room 10 10 Studios 5 5 140 95 75 1,000-210 or 790. This building is then entitled to 362 out of 790 points, which reduced to a 1,000-point basis (f ff of 1,000) gives 458, the adjusted score. These scores would best be interpreted on the basis suggested by the authors of the score card:^ "Experience resulting from the application of the score card to hundreds of school buildings in various sections of the United States suggests that a score of 900 to 1,000 points indicates a Per cent of schools 100 75 50 25 — 3-4'^teacher schools — 5-9:teacher schools — — lO+iteacher schools Score 200 400 600 800 1000 Diagram 19. — Percentage of schools with three or more teachers having adjusted scores equal to or greater than those shown highly satisfactory degree of construction and equipment. In fact, in only a few minor respects does such a building deviate from acceptable standards. "A rating between 700 and 900 points is fairly satisfactory. Such a rating should be studied in the light of its component parts. Slight building alterations, the need for which will be indicated by the low score allowed on such items, will tend to raise considerably • General Report on School Buildings and Grounds of Delaware. Bulletin of the Service Citizens of Delaware, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 195, 196. 76 the score of a building in this group. A score of 500 to 700 points has meant that considerable alteration was needed before these buildings could be brought to a satisfactory standard of efficiency. "When scores of buildings have fallen below 500 points, it has been the universal judgment of those who have built the score card that speedy abandonment of those buildings for school purposes was the only justifiable course to be followed. In all instances where scores of 500 points or less have resulted it has seemed that expenditures for repairs and reconstruction would be highly ex- cessive. It has also seemed that there was little possibility, even with the expenditure of relatively large sums of money, to secure as a result of such repairs and reconstruction a building which was suitable for school purposes." If Table 33 is interpreted on the basis suggested by the authors, 1.4 percent only of the 5-9 teacher group fall into the highly satisfactory class, while 25.8 percent of the 3-4 teacher group, 25.7 percent of the 5-9 group, and 42.2 percent of the 10 + group are fairly satisfactory. The percentage of unsatisfactory buildings is thus seen to be high in all three groups. Whether or not the reader accepts the basis of interpretation given, the facts do make clear that the great majority of communities need to analyze existing building facilities to see where improvements need to be made and to devise ways and means of making these improvements most economically. It is doubtless unnecessary to warn the reader that a comparison of one- and two-teacher buildings with these larger ones on the basis of scores is not feasible because of differences in standards employed in the two score cards. 3. Some General Information Table 34 gives the facts regarding the material of which these buildings are constructed. The majority of the 3-4 teacher and the 5-9 teacher schools are frame. Only in the 10 -f- teacher group do we find something more substantial predominating. In Tables 35 and 36 are presented data regarding the type of building: one showing the number of stories, the other the shape. As these facts indicate, there has been a tendency to build the 77 rectangular and square shape, and in some cases to build more stories than is now customary in buildings of that size. Table 34.- —Material or Construction Percentage of All Schools Studied Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-f Teachers 63.3% 30.0 6.7 60.9% 31.9 7.2 6.6% Brick 91.2 Concrete and stone 2.2 Table 35.— Number of Stories Percentage of All Schools Studied Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten + Teachers 35.5% 64.5 0.0 5.7% 88.6 5.7 0.0% Two stories . ... 88.9 11.1 Table 36. — Shape of Buildings Percentage of All Schools Studied Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-f Teachers 16.1% 51.6 6.5 22.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 7.1% 58.6 17.1 10.0 4.3 0.0 2.9 2.2% Rectangular .... 51.1 L 13.3 T 11.1 H 8.9 U 2.2 No data . 0.0 » 78 The distribution of these buildings as to function is also interest- ing. In the table below the facts are so arranged as to indicate the percentage of schools that house all grades up to and including the one where the percentage is given. Thus 3.2 percent of the 3-4 teacher group (in this case only one school) include only the first Table 37. — Distribution as to Function of Building Grades Housed Percentage of All Schools Studied Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-I- Teachers 1 2 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 29.1 12.9 38.7 0.0 9.7 0.0% 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.4 1.4 10.1 0.0 4.3 0.0 75.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0% 0.0 3 0.0 4. . . . 0.0 5 0.0 6 6.7 7 0.0 8 4.5 9 0.0 10 2.2 11 0.0 12 73.3 4-year high school 2.2 3-12 2.2 6-12 0.0 7-12 4.5 8-12 2.2 9-12 2.2 Primary and vocational 0.0 two grades; 73.3 percent of the 10 -}- teacher group have all twelve grades. Other combinations of grades are presented in the latter part of the table. The general practice is for a building to house all twelve grades in both groups of larger schools. In the 3-4 teacher buildings eight and ten grades are the most frequently found. 4. To What Extent Ark Modern Facilities Provided? In this section there will be presented an analysis of situations that are particularly fundamental, no attempt being made to cover all those that are important. 79 (a) Floor and Air Space. — The New York statutes require that new and remodeled buildings have 15 square feet of floor space and 200 cubic feet of air space per pupil. Tables 38 and 39 show Table 38. — Distribution of Schools, Showing Percentage of Class, Recitation, and Study Rooms in Which the Standard of 15 Square Feet of Floor Space per Pupil is Met Percent of Rooms Percentage of All Such Rooms Studied Meeting Standards Three to Four Five to Nine Ten + Teachers Teachers Teachers 100 66.6% 54.4% 33.3% 90-99 0.0 0.0 6.7 80-89 0.0 17.1 0.0 70-79 10.0 10.0 24.4 60-69 6.7 7.1 6.7 50-59 6.7 2.8 13.3 40-49 0.0 4.3 6.7 30-39 0.0 4.3 4.4 20-29 0.0 0.0 0.0 10-19 6.7 0.0 0.0 1.0-9.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.0 2.2 Table 39. — Distribution of Schools, Showing Percentage of Class, Recitation, and Study Rooms in Which the Standard of 200 Cubic Feet of Air Space per Pupil is Met Percent of Rooms Percentage of All Such Rooms Studied Meeting Standards Three to Four Five to Nine Ten + Teachers Teachers Teachers 100 40.0% 20.0% 35.6% 90-99 0.0 2.9 0.0 80-89 0.0 21.4 13.3 70-79 10.0 7.1 8.9 60-69 6.7 10.0 13.3 50-59 20.0 15.7 15.6 40-49 0.0 2.9 2.2 30-39 10.0 8.6 2.2 20-29 0.0 7.2 0.0 10-19 0.0 1.4 2.2 1.0-9.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 13.3 1.4 6.7 8o to what extent the buildings studied meet these standards in class, recitation, and study rooms. (b) Natural Lighting. — While the situation in these schools is better than in those having one and two teachers regarding the ratio of glass area to floor space, it is still inadequate in many schools. In Table 40 are given the facts regarding this matter, Table 40. — Ratio of Glass Aeea to Floor Area in Class, Recitation, AND Study Rooms Ratio Three to Four Five to Nine Ten + Teachers Teachers Teachers 1: 2 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 6.1 2.9 3.2 4 11.3 12.6 16.2 5 18.5 26.2 28.0 6 31.7 22.7 19.1 7 8.2 10.1 16.1 8 10.0 11.8 10.5 9 7.1 5.3 5.5 10 4.1 4.6 .6 11 0.0 1.6 .2 12 0.0 .7 .2 13 2.0 .3 .2 14 ' 0.0 .3 .2 15 0.0 .0 .0 16 0.0 .0 .0 17 0.0 .3 .0 18 0.0 .3 .0 19 0.0 .3 .0 Med lan in 1 : 6 group 1 : 6 group 1 : 5 group 10«= teacher schools Ter cent Above standard Below standard 53.6 5-9rteacher schools 58.3 3-4 -teacher schools 63.1 Diagram 20.— Percentage of schools with three or more teachers having a ratio of glass area to floor space equal to or above the standard of 1 :5 Si tabulated on the basis of number of class, recitation, and study rooms. Other rooms are not included because the need for the amount of light specified in the standard is not so great in rooms that are not used continuously for study. Even in the 10 + teacher group the median falls about where the minimum should be, while in the other groups the situation is worse. Table 41 gives somewhat similar data, but, instead of indicating the number of rooms that have a given ratio, it shows how large a Table 41. — Distribution of Schools, Showing Percentage of Class, Recitation, and Study Rooms in Which the Ratio or Glass to Floor Area Is Below 1:5 Percentage of All Schools Studied Percentage of Rooms Having Ratio of Glass to Floor Area Below 1:5 Three to Four Five to Nine Ten-I- Teachers Teachers Teachers 0% 25.8% 15.5% 15.6% 1- 9 00.0 00.0 00.0 10-19 00.0 5.6 8.9 20-29 3.2 8.5 2.2 30-39 3.2 1.4 8.9 40-49 00.0 4.2 4.4 50-59 3.2 8.5 11.1 60-69 9.7 7.0 11.1 70-79 0.0 5.6 6.7 80-89 0.0 11.3 15.6 90-99 0.0 0.0 2.2 100 54.9 32.4 13.3 percentage of rooms in each school fails to meet the standard. Thus, of the 3-4 teacher group, 25.8 percent of the schools meet the standard in all rooms, while in 54.9 percent of the schools it is not met in any of the rooms. In the 3-4 teacher schools 67.8 percent of the schools have one-half or more of their rooms that fail to meet the standard; in the 5-9 group the percentage is 64.8; in the 10 + group it is 59.9. The top-roller shade is still the prevailing type in these schools, though there is a larger percentage of rooms having such modern 83 types as the movable and double roller than is the case in the one- and two-teacher schools. Table 42. — Percentage of Class, Recitation, and Study Rooms Having Different Types of Shades Percentage of All Such Rooms Studied Type of Shade Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-I- Teachers Top roller . . . 75.0% 0.0 0.0 21.3 .9 0.0 .9 1.9 72.3% 2.8 5.2 8.2 6.9 0.0 3.8 .8 63.3% 5 Bottom roller Middle roller 10 6 Double roller 15.9 Movable . . 1 4 Shutter . . . 59 None 22 No data .2 The percentage of shades that are translucent, as judged by color, is considerably higher than in the smaller buildings. Conditions in regard to the direction from which the light comes Table 43. — Percentage of Class, Recitation, and Study Rooms Having Translucent and Opaque Shades (on Basis of Color) Percentage of All Such Rooms Studied Color of Shade Three to Four Teachers Four to Five Teachers Ten4- Teachers Ooaaue 62.9% 36.2 .9 .0 52.4% 43.0 3.8 .8 58.5% 34.4 None 7.1 0.0 are better than in the one- and two-teacher schools. Here, while the left and rear lighting is most frequent, the unilateral type is found in a considerable percentage of the cases. 83 Table 44.- -Percentage or Class, Recitation, and Study Rooms Having Light from Different Directions Window Placement Percentage of All Such Rooms Studied Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten + Teachers Front Left Rear Right Front, left Front, rear Front, right Left, rear Left, right Rear, right Front, left, rear Front, left, right Left, rear, right Front, rear, right .... Front, left, rear, right Top No data 0.0% 16.2 .9 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 53.2 2.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 26.5 1.4 .5 2.2 0.0 0.0 47.6 1.4 5.8 3.9 .2 8.4 .7 .5 .0 .9 .2% 44.2 3.4 .2 1.5 0.0 0.0 43.5 1.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 .2 .7 10«:teacher scbools Per cent of all schools stuUad 1 Bide 2 sides |48?ol 5-9=toacher scbools 3-4=teacher schools ran ^ a. Top O-Zfi, no data 0.7^ b. 4 sides 0.5^, no data 0.9^ Diagram 21. — Window placement in schools with three or more teachers (c) Heating Facilities. — A few of these larger buildings, especially in the 3-^ teacher group, still use stoves (Table 45), but modern types of heating are generally found. Relatively few have thermostatic control (Table 46). Table 45. — Heating Facilities Percentage of All Schools Studied Kind Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-I- Teachers Hot-air furnace . . . 54.9% 29.0 0.0 3.2 12.9 0.0 0.0 45.7% 38.6 2.8 0.0 4.3 8.6 0.0 35.5% 46.7 Steam boiler Hot water boiler 2.2 Gas stoves 0.0 Stoves 0.0 Combination 1 and 2 No data 15.6 0.0 (d) Fire Protection. — ^Table 47 presents several phases of this subject. The situation varies so much that each group of schools should be considered separately. In the 5-9 group, 51.4 percent have no apparatus; 44.3 percent have only one kind of apparatus; 75.7 percent have no fire-retarding features; all except 14.2 percent have either a gong or a special Table 46. — Thermostatic Control Is There Thermostatic Percentage of All Schools Studied Control ? Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-t- Teachers Yes 0.0% 96.8 3.2 7.2% 90.0 2.8 22.2% No 76.6 2.2 fire alarm system; 22.9 percent have combustible and inflammable material stored in the building; in 91.4 percent of the cases the out- side doors open out; in 70 percent of the schools none of the exit doors are supplied with panic bolts. It is, therefore, clear that many buildings are lacking facilities essential to the proper protec- tion of life and property. 8S Table 47. — Various Factors in Fire Protection Percentage of All Schools Studied Factors in Fire Protection Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-I- Teachers 1. Apparatus 22.5% 0.0 0.0 77.5 0.0 22.5% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 16.1 83.9 0.0 0.0% 12.9 29.0 58.1 0.0 12.9% 87.1 0.0 83.9% 9.7 3.2 3.2 77.4% 0.0 3.2 6.5 0.0 12.9 0.0 41.4% 11.4 0.0 51.4 1.4 44.3% 20.0 75.7 2.8 0.0% 48.5 54.2 14.2 0.0 22.9% 72.9 4.2 91.4% 5.7 2.9 0.0 70.0% 0.0 4.3 5.7 0.0 17.1 2.9 68.8% Fire hose 35.5 Automatic sprinkler 0.0 17.7 No data 0.0 2. Number of kinds of appa- ratus 55.5% Two kinds 24.4 3. Fire retarding provisions Basement iso ated . from 4.4% Basement ceiling fireproof . Heating apparatus en- 28.8 51.1 No such provisions No data 18.0 0.0 4. Alarm systems 0.0% Special signal 44.4 71.1 None 4.4 0.0 5. Combustible and inflam- mable material stored in building Yes 26.6% No 73.3 No data 0.0 6. Outside doors open Out 93.4% In 0.0 Some of each 2.2 4.4 7. Percentage of exit doors supplied with anti-panic bolts 0% 33.3% 1-24 0.0 25-49 2.2 50-74 17.8 75-99 6.7 100 35.6 Not certain 4.4 86 10»steacher schools 6-9~teaoliar schools Per cent of all schools studied Fire apparatus Rone 1321 3-4=teacher schools 77 10*-teaober schools Fire retarding provision Noie 5-9«teaLCher schools 3-4'=teacher schools 76 H' 84 • Ho data. Diagram 22. — Fire protection in buildings with three or more teachers (e) Methods or Cleaotng. — Even in these larger buildings dry sweeping is still the prevailing form, while approximately three- fourths only of the schools have oiled floors. Table 48. — Methods of Cleaning Percentage of All Schools Studied Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten + Teachers 1. Sweeping Dry 74.2% 19.3 0.0 6.5 67.8% 29.0 3.2 72.9% 25.7 0.0 1.4 75.7% 24.3 0.0 60.0% 33.4 Compound Vacuum 44 No data 2.2 2. Is floor oiled? Yes 82.2% 17.8 No 0.0 87 (/) Artificial Lighting. — Electricity is the most frequent method of lighting, but there is altogether too large a percentage Table 49. — Artificial Lighting Percentage o£ All Schools Studied Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten + Teachers 1. Type Gas 9.7% 22.6 12.9 54.8 0.0 25.8% 3.2 3.2 3.2 54.9 9.7 5.7% 61.4 1.4 32.8 0.0 50.0% 4.3 4.3 8.6 32.8 0.0 26.6% 91.1 0.0 Electricity Lamp None 44 No data 0.0 2. Method Direct 46.7% 6.7 Indirect Semi-indirect 13 4 Two or more kinds None 26.6 44 No data 2.2 of the 3-4 and 5-9 teacher groups that have no provision. This means that in such places the building cannot be utilised to the fullest extent for community and extra-curriculum activities. Table 50. — Types of Blackboard Percentage of AU Rooms Studied Type Three to Four Teachers Five to Nine Teachers Ten-I- Teachers 1. Slate 54.7% 13.9 10.2 1.9 .9 6.4 4.6 .9 2.8 .9 2.8 79.4% 8.3 1.0 .2 0.0 2.9 .6 .8 .2 .8 5.8 81.5% 5.9 3. Wood . 0.0 4. Cloth 0.0 5. Plaster 0.0 Combinations 1 and 2 1.3 1 and 3 0.0 1 and 4 0.0 1 and 5 1.9 All others 1.5 7.8 o O W a o O 60 C a c O B *■ ■*4 (^ ?1 ^^^^^91 Built about 1870; remodeled about 1905; stairway inadequate in case of fire; no provision for fire protection; no artificial lighting sys- tem; outdoor toilets in bad condition; laboratory quite inadequate; fairly good study hall but no other special rooms; large playground area but no play apparatus. Score: 438. ^_m jji^^i ^3 ^^^^^^B ^■H ■ \ 1 IkMH^^ Special service rooms 3. Rooms for school officials A> Large rooms for general use Diagram 24. — Median score of buildings witli tliree pr more teachers on each of the main groups of items considered. The median is interpreted in terms of the percentage of a perfect score that is attained 9S II. A PROGRAM OF IMPROVEMENT The data presented on the preceding pages emphasize the fact that New York state does not provide satisfactory buildings for its school children. The situation is worst, and is really serious, in the one-teacher schools. In the two-teacher schools it is better but still in great need of improvement. In the schools of 3 teachers and over the situation is mixed — satisfactory in a few places, in need of improvement in most, utterly inadequate in some. A. WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF PRESENT CONDITIONS? 1. How Representative District Superintendents Analyze THE Situation We may approach the question most advantageously by learning what the district superintendents consider the causes of present conditions. A request to this effect was made of each of the 37 co-operating superintendents. The results are given herewith. Causes 1 to 5 were suggested on the inquiry blanks; other causes given were inserted by the superintendents in blank spaces pro- vided for that purpose. Cause number 7 is given a separate place because it may be quite different from cause 3. In all probability the superintendents intended to make a distinction between the inability of a community to maintain a satisfactory school building and its unwillingness to do so. Cause 9 involves some of the elements of cause 2, but it is given a separate place because it suggests not lack of knowledge so much as complete apathy regarding the question. Accepting this analysis of causes at its face value, we get much light upon the problem of securing improvement in the building situation. The writer is inclined to give considerable weight to this analysis not only because the superintendent is directly in touch with the problem daily but because the analysis is supported 96 by facts that will be presented later and because it agrees so well with tentative conclusions the writer had formed through his travels in the state. Undoubtedly the possibiHty of consolidation prevents some superintendents from issuing orders for condemnation or alterations. It may be a forlorn hope in most communities so far as the im- mediate future is concerned, but it does seem shortsighted to a professional oflScer to expend large siuns upon schools that are within two miles or less of each other, particularly when the country is fairly level, the roads good, and the school attendance small. In many cases a program for improved buildings should go hand-in- hand with a frank discussion of securing better educational condi- tions of all kinds by that type of group co-operation represented in consoHdation. Table 55. — Causes of Present Condition of School Buildings as Indi- cated BY District Superintendents Total number answering 24 1. Possibility of consolidation and hence extensive repairs on existing buildings should not be made r ... 19 2. People believe existing conditions are satisfactory and would oppose improvement 17 3. District is financially unable to make needed improvement 14 4. (During last 3 years only) cost of building is too high 13 5. State requirements (stated in law) are inadequate and rulings of the Division of Grounds and Buildings are not sufficiently authoritative with the rural population 7 6. Factions prevent unity for building purposes 2 7. Afraid of high taxes 2 8. State regulations not enforced 1 9. Indifference 3 One cause not mentioned in Table 55— lack of persistent leader- ship on the part of the superintendent — deserves mention at least. It is so bound up with other causes, such as indifference and ignor- ance of patrons regarding proper standards, lack of sufficiently definite state standards, failure of the state to withhold funds when unsatisfactory conditions are not improved, and the non-existence of funds to reward progress, that it would be quite hopeless to attempt to determine its exact influence as a contributing cause. The other causes given can readily be analyzed by groups and at least some objective data regarding their influence, together with suggestions for overcoming them, can be presented. 7 97 2. Causes or Present Conditions as Revealed by Statistical Analysis One of the important causes appears to be the financial ability of the community. In order to study this factor more carefully, Tables 56 to 60 were constructed to show the relationship between the quality of a building as measured by the score card and the real valuation of the district in which the building is found. Two ques- tions may be raised: (1) Are there communities financially unable to provide a satisfactory building without assistance? (2) Do communities actually exert themselves for better buildings ac- cording to their financial ability? In Table 68 facts are presented indicating that the cost of im- proving a one-teacher building receiving about the median score and having deficiencies that are fairly typical would be around $1,200. Assume that such a community would hope to meet the essential standards by the end of a four-year period. This would make a cost of $300 for each of the four years. If now one takes the median real valuation of the one-teacher schools — $91,000 — he can readily compute that a community with this wealth must levy a rate of 3.29 mills to raise the $300. Since the median real tax-rate levied by common school districts over and above the state funds now given is 5.44 mills, one can see that the rate of 3.29 mills necessary in the illustrative case is high for the purpose of building improvement. An inspection of, for example. Table 56 will make it clear that no matter what rate we set as reasonable for building improvement, there will be some districts in the state that cannot meet the desired standards without carr3dng a burden quite beyond reason. For example, one of the 37 schools in the 600-649 group having a valuation between $25,000 and $49,000 would need to levy a rate of from 6 to 13 mills. Clearly the state should do some- thing to help such communities. A second question involved is whether communities exert them- selves on the matter of school building according to their ability. Is the good building in a relatively wealthy district and the poor building in a district that is poor relatively? To the extent that the wealthy districts do not have a good building some measures need to be taken to see that such communities do as much as they 98 rt 3 VO m OV CN Q a^ t^ (^ f^ 00 lO CN o o -"i* • • • ■.-H CN ^ !>• Oq OS On IT) 00 00 "^ t-H ■ • • ^ ■i-H CM C^J tH ID lo flj ■^ ^H CN rD (r> w (TKN (N SO ro (M O ^ O (M • '-I - 1—1 (N lO On r^ OS CM St • • (T) ^ - • ^ (T) '^ ■^ o in 0\ ■^■■eN-'-'rH-^ ID g ^ to \n o\ « S7 1— (1— (••■CSi— l-f^-1— 1 O -< 3 &? 1 ^ ^ CN - T-l CN 1-1 CS ro ■'--1 ■* .fv^,_(CNii^,_(r^pr,ev]psl rg S7 T-i • (N • \o lo NO ■»-' lo es ■^ ,' • lO OS &^ 1 - - • ^ lo T-< lo lo NO in CN ■ -^ "5 O CN ^ 1 . .^ ■ -^^ T^OOOO^ cD o -^ ■ ■ r^ ■ (T) o O so ■^ !>. NO *r> cs • ■ *-i (N ^ (M s • • ^C^CNrO'rH I-. 1—1 §3 ST ' ■ ■^ '^ NO NO O "0 CM (r> t^ CN ■ ■^ • ■ - T-H 1-1 CM rD CN '^ ... 1—1 fD CN lO CO <^ 00 O r- t-^ T-i Th ^ .... ■^ -^ so rD CN ^ .... ST ■ T-i CM r^ lO r- ro Th fO 00 (M w 1-1 • ■ • T-H oj so t-- ''i^ ■^ ^ • - ■ 3 CN St ■ i-< -LOi-^ONr^i—irocNi— 11/^1— 1 • ■ T-( T-H ro lO nO (M CS • • ' • NO CN §i 3§ ^1 3 Q S=f a II 6* 99 are able. The suggestion then is that if such a condition exists in regard to this problem, one or both of two procedures should be followed: A type of aid that will stimulate each community to do all it can should be devised; state legislation requiring reasonably high minimimi standards should be passed. In the case of the dis- trict of low valuation some form of aid should be granted to render the necessary assistance. Average score i 7'YI ■" vm' w^ ^ - -J PM" -- ^ 1 RfiD u e I I S ft ^ J § n « 5 ; -1 1- fi e 5 I f c - c a c n c it It r c n c ■< 11 f 5 j< a it 3 IT 1 o in 3 M " « s Real valuation - thousauids of dollars Diagram 25. — Relationship between median total scores (essential + addi- tional) of one-teacher buildings and the average real valuations of the districts maintaining them. The dots show the average score for the different valuations. The line indicates the general trend Table 56 gives a distribution of one-teacher schools by total score received and by real valuation of the communities. The real valuations are those set by the State Tax Commission. Inspec- tion of this table makes it clear that there is some correlation be- tween quality of building and wealth of district, since in general the schools with lowest score are in the poorer districts and those with highest scores are in the wealthier districts. However, it is 1 so '^ II St : :-^ ::::::::::::::: : -H St :::-::::::::::::::: '^ lO OS if ▼H a 1^ i-H o w ID Os S7 •« fo to 1 S7 :: i-^ :-:: i-^ :::::::: : ro 8S ■.— l*Hi-t^— 1 ■ ■ m t-* iOO\ S7 ■«— 1 *-l CN .s S7 • • ■ . CS . . - 1-1 fO m ^5 ^^ 1 oo u 1 «© 1 »-l--'-l— l--'t-( CO 'S 1/) 5 «& 1 1— l.r-l-'»— 1 CO «© 1 « o § mo-. <© 1 ■* 1 i© 1 -> > «j ro » 0-* St Is HU3 o /-sO\0N0000t^r-^^OO»OiOT*-<*r<5t^(NCNi-i S 1 II 6> c? clear that the correlation is far from perfect. Thus, of the 79 schools in the 750-799 group, 17 fall either in the valuation group that con- tains the median valuation or in groups below, while the other schools are scattered throughout the table, 1 having a valuation of $525,000 or more. The coefficient of correlation (Pearson's) is .39 =<= .017. That this correlation figure is no higher compels us to conclude that Average s»*Ee 1000 750 500 250 * I ^ BMS H^ >>■" ™" ' at rt en -^ a> T)t ^ r- m CM ■* r- r^ l-l rH J Q U3 O lO O lO O CM lO CM A r^ iH /-I iH 175-199 200-224 225-249 250-274 275-299 ^ en ^ o» CM ^ p- en o rt o w S 1 ■* 9 ys 9 i? O CM lO t» n n n n Real valuation - thousands Of dollars Diagram 26. — Relationship between average total scores (essential + addi- tional) of two-teacher buildings and the average real valuations of the district maintaining them. The dots show the average score for the different valuations. The line indicates the general trend while wealth of community is one factor in good school buildings in the one-teacher districts, it is not so significant as might be ex- pected. Tables 57, 58, 59, and 60 give similar information for the four groups of larger buildings, as indicated. No correlation figures are presented for these groups for the reason that the number of cases presented in the tables is so small that the situation can be adequately set forth through the distribution tables. Except in I^ox ; ; ; ; ; • i^rtt^tM^TjivOTjiiMcN • ■ ■ I3A0 pn^ooo'ef fo 666'r-0S8'Z| ::::::::::::-:::::; t-H 6^8'2-00Z'Z$ 669'Z-0SS'Z$ ei-s'z-ow'z^ 66e'Z-0SZ'Zf 6^2'2-00l'2$ 660'2-056'lf 6t6'l-008'T$ 66i'l-OS9'Tl 6W'I-00S'T| eet-'T-osfif 6fe'l-002'lf 66T'l-0S0'lf ^ - 6tO' 1-006$ 668-0£Z$ '.'.'.'■'.'-'■ '•'^ ■■'■'.'. ^-^ '.'.'.','. '. Ol 6t'i-009f ees-ogff ::::::::-;:-:-::::: CO 6W-oofS; cs i-H ^ cs ^ ^ ^ ^ ; o 662-0511; '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. -^ '.'. ^~* '^ '. ■^ '.'. '. lO 05TI Jspun ■^ Total Score o ■.-^a^C^OOOOt>.t^'O^OlOlO■^^Pf)^ocSCS■^-lP o H 103 Flox -^ CO CO -^ ■•-H lo CN 0\ ■^ ro T-t ■ ■ ■ S jaAQpuBooo'ef !!!!!!'— f!'-'!!!'-'!!!!!! m 666'Z-0S8'Zf 6t8'Z-00i'Zl 669'2-0SS'Z$ '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.■'-*'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. - 6f'S'Z-00f''Zl cs *-l i-H 66e'J-05Z'Zl cs . . . . tH rH etz'z-ooi'zf 660'2-OS6'T$ 6t6'T-008'll - »-i . . . 66i'T-0S9'Tl 6t9'l-00S'Tl i I ! ! ! ! ! ■^ ! ! ! cs 1-1 ; ! ; ; ; ; -* 66t'l-0ffe'Tl 6te'T-ooz'i$ t-1 66l'T-0S0'Tf !!!;;;'-i;'-icn;'-i;;i;:;: lo 6W)'T-006t .":::::: -H ^ '-I (M CN :::::: : r-«. 668-OJil !!;;;(N;;focN;i-Hi-i ;;;:;: 0-. 6^4-0091 I ! I !'-*'—' !■«— ii-HCNi-H ; t^ 66S-OStf ! ! I ! Icsi-i ; r>i :th : t-i 1-1 OO 6tt-ooe$ 1-1 -.^ ■ (N 1-1 1-1 i-l ... o 663-OSIf '. \ \ ir-ii-(T-HT-H(M(N ; 00 OSTi! wpun - . . 1— ' 0) s u CO ■a 1 o _|_0\Q\0n0\0n0\0\CNO\0n0\0\0n0nO\0\Ovi-' (— ,0\0\COCX3t-t^\pOi/^iOr**-^roroCSeNi-i S i-iO\OsOOOOI>.^-.vOvOiDiO'^'^rCroeNCSi-iP 13 o H 104 l^iox • - ■ ti^ \ri IT) irnTi t^ 00 -^ r~i T-i ^ MAOpuBooo'es ■ • ■ CS t-^ fO ^H *H -co 666'3-0S8'3l 6n'z-ooi'zt ! t ! ! ! ! '^ 1 '"' ! ! i ' ! i ! ■ • • es 669'Z-0S&'Z$ 1 ' 1 1 1 ; 1 ; ^H 1 1 i ; 1 i ! ! ! ! 1-1 6K'z-(m'zfi !!!!!!!!'-'!!!!!!!!!' - 66f'2-0S2'Zf '.' -r^ ''.'. \ '.-^ '.'.'.','.'.'. '. cs 6tZ'Z-00T'2S; '.'.'. \ '.-^ '.^^ '. '.^^ '.'.'.'.'.'.'. '. CO 660'2-0S6'll; '.'.'. ^^ '.'.'.'.'. ''^ .'.'•'.'. \ - '. '• (N 6f6'T-008'Tl - 66i'T-0S9'lf m r^ CA . 6W'l-00?'lf ! '.^-* '.^-* 1 »H tH »-l '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. U-) 66f'i-ose'i$ n . . y-^ y-i T-t .... 6te'T-002'l$ *-l ■ ■ • - "^ 66I'I-0S0'T| .'.'.'. ^^ y-^ '.'.'.'.'. y-* '.'.'.'... '. m 6W'T-006$ '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. '.r^ '. '.--1 '.'.'.'.'. '. ff) 668-0SZ$ .'...'..', '.y-* '.y-* '. \ '.'.'. \ '. '. cs 6tZ-009l ees-osi-s 6^t-00E$ 66Z-0SI$ osif jspun -H T-H Total Score p 1 loS H m O U < < < o + «z M O o ^ o M o (/3 13 O H P n H M I < 2 O IB?OX lO CN 0\ lO TjH r+< ID PO C^ !>■ 00 ■<** .... ■^ CN ro ^O O t-- -^ f^ "0 'O CO .... 00 036I-9I6T 1-H CM SI6I-TT6T CO 0I6T-906T ■ t-hoio •lof^vofoeNTH ■*-( CO CO S06I-I06I tH ■ i-H <>) fO lO -^ lO -^ cn \o CO CO 006T-968T T^ -^ ■ »-l CTl t-H 00 Os t^ fO (N ^ co S68T-T68I - ■ f-t ■ (M lO CO lO O !>• fT) CO 068T-9881 . - ■ • Tij^ ■^ o CD Os OS 00 c*:i cs 00 1-^ S88T-T88T fO 00 lO ■^ T-H ^O fO ■ 1-H »-l (N 1-1 00 088T-9i8T - ■ ■ ■ -^ lo o o (M t-^ 00 ro cs ..;... - ■ ■ • T-H i-H fO CN *H ■^ sm-im ■ ■ ■ ■ lo lo o ^ cs r^ so CM -«**■.-( 1-H .... . . . . '^ (N Ol 1-1 1-t .... s 0i8I-998T . . wtH ■^ Tf* -^ lO -^ 00 O t^ -w .... . ■ ^ (M (M CT) 1-H t-H S98T-T98T . . .^ ■ r<3 M T*i lO ro O 'cf CM CS w .... 098I-9J8T ■ i-.iOsOCM'— IOOOO\'-*CS . . . .,_|,_1CN^,_|T-ll— 1 lo SS8T-IS8T rri lO CN 00 O CM ■* CM 0S8T-9t8T . . . . T-H -r^ lO T-H O O 00 OO CO ro .... ■^CMCOtH ^ 2 St8t-Tt8I .^ . . . T-1 r- i-H 00 ^ lo CM ■ ■^ lO ; 00 o o en ■a 1 — .S\O\0000t^I>>'OspiO>')'^'«:'c0C0CNCM'i-i 4) '^LnOioOiOO"^OioOiOQioOiOO"1)»^ i-Tos o(oooor^t^ c io6 the one-teacher schools the number of cases is too small to justify final conclusions. Another factor entering into the problem of the quality of the school building is its age. Table 61 gives a distribution of the one- Average score 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 y / y * / - — 2= 1 =teaoh< sr < lohc iOlj ', y f / / 1= tea Bhe n 1 r schools ^ ^ ^ " A iH ^ r^ «D 1-1 .A A .A 1 1 1 (H n to l-( /-I M S ^ r-t (-1 r-( iH to S CO S o> ■H a s Date of construction Diagram 27. — Relationship between average total scores (essential -|- addi- tional) of one- and two-teacher buildings and the dates of their construction. These curves were determined by plotting the average for the various dates of construction, and then the line drawn by inspection, greater weight being given to those points which represented the greater number of schools teacher schools by quality of building and date of construction. Are the older buildings the poorer ones? Diagram 27 presents the matter more concretely. It will be noticed that from 1825 to about 107 p M H to O O I + H §■2 89 en r Hm < H o H p< m en I >-< O O M H 6 o a o O M- I^iox 036I-9I6T ST6T-II6T 0I6I-906T 0^f*5■^■<*^00O00ti^^O•Tt^ S06T-I06I 001-9681 S681-T68T 0681-9881 S88I-T88I 088T-9Z81 sm-im 0Z8I-998T S98I-T98I 098T-9S8I SS8T-IS81 0S8T-9t8T . cs . . ^ . w ^ r. fo II q ajopa 10 5281 e2 d> io8 PQ -S o I^OX ■-H !>. (N ^ -^ ■**< PO ■ CN ' • • 0Z6I-9T6I »H »-l r>i ST6I-n6I !-<»-( CM 0T6T-906T ::::::::-;;-::::::: CN S06I-T06T '. '. '. ! c^ ■^ ! ^ ^ ! '-' '. O 0061-9681 ;:::::::-:;:-:::::: CM S681-T68T 068I-988T S88T-T88I '. '. '. '. '. '. !»-i !'—''-< i*-* !! ! "* 088I-9i8l '.','. \ '.'.'.'.'.','.'.'. ^-^ '. ■'~* '.'. '. CM Si8I-U8T Oi8I-998T S98T-I98T 098T-958T SS8I-IS8I 0S8t-9t8T 5*81-1*81 0*8I-9e8T S{:8T-If8l 0e8T-928T jaip^a JO S28I 8 3 o 1,000-1- 950-999 900-949 850-899 800-849 750-799 700-749 650-699 60O-M9 550-599 500-549 450-199 400-449 350-399 300-349 250-299 200-249 150-199 Under 150 s ^ log 1895 there is a very slight tendency for the newer buildings to im- prove in quality, while beginning about 1900 the rise is much more rapid. In the one-teacher schools the correlation figure for the entire period, 1825-1920, is .12 ± .021. Average score 900 800 700 600 500 4 / • 4 -in . _*■ 3ao yet sc lOOlB -»*• > f ,' f - ^ « -X ;> / 400 5- ■9=) ^. nei • • hoc 3- sac 3Bt 9C 100 J.8 1^00 ?no ion *• e ir c a & i r > r t • ; o a -t r ) ^ O 1 S i ■* r 1 ■1 V 5 • a «- 1 i < 1 V i U 1 1 3 a 4 r i % I i a a •t «■ 1 » ' » •4 r 3 1 1 1 i i Q H r 1 . - 1 s : > 1 > t H r 5 5 3 S a -1 r 5 ■ 1 r r 5 : n h i4 r 4 r H n c -1 r y u ■i w 1 ° ■> a 4 e 5 S Date of construotlon Diagram 28. — Relationship between scores of buildings with three or more teachers and the dates of their construction. These curves were determined by plotting the averages for the various dates of construction, and then the line drawn by inspection, greater weight being given to those points which repre- sented the greater number of schools In the hope of determining more definitely just when this more rapid rise begins, the buildings erected during the last 30 years were redistributed into two-year, rather than five-year, groups. These data give a coefficient of .53 =fc .029. This redistribution tends to throw the date somewhat later. The first marked rise comes in the 1901-02 group. The 1903-04 group is at the same level. There is a slight rise in 1905-06 and a considerable rise in 1907-08. Thus while we are unable to say from the data at hand just when the more rapid rise begins, it is clear that it comes sometimes during the period 1901 to 1907. It is interesting to note that when the data for schools with two or more teachers are graphed (Diagrams 27 and 28), all five groups of schools show almost exactly the same tendency. In attempting to explain this more rapid rise in the relationship between the quality of a building and its age one is led to see that age itself involves several factors. For example, one of these factors is quite certain to be the desire of the community for a better building. Now we know that there has been throughout the country greater interest in all phases of education in recent years, so that one would expect some tendency for the newer buildings to reflect this interest. Was there any event in the state that might explain a greater interest in the improvement of build- ings that, as we have seen, begins somewhere between 1901 and 1907? In 1904 the unification of the State Department of Education and the Board of Regents took place; the state superintendency was developed into the state commissionership; and new legisla- tion regarding building standards was enacted. Here undoubtedly was a stimulus. In looking for causes of improvement in school buildings all legislation should, however, be evaluated. There are four legisla- tive acts and one order of the State Department that would be likely to have more or less influence. These may be considered from two points of view: (1) the effect these had upon the actual score of a building; (2) the effect they had on the more rapid rise in score in recent years. (1) Since 1864 the school commissioner (now the district super- intendent) has had power to condemn unsatisfactory buildings. If this law was actually a factor in improvement, either it was not an important one until about 1900, as is clearly shown by the low scores presented in Diagram 27, or the standards that satisfied the superintendents were considerably below those used in the scoring F?ox ^ ro ro -.-H 1-H \0 «— 1 \0 fO PO *-! ■ ■ ■ ,-H ,_( ,-1 ... OJ « 026I-9T6I ^ ST6T-T16T :*:...'W(>j(r)'^ t^ 016T-906T '. \ \ '. '.c^ '. '.-^ ', '.-^ '.'.'.'.'.'. '. >* S06T-I06t :::;:: i-H^^-^^ro :::;;:: - 006T-968I 1^ S68I-T68T T-( *-( TH ... n 068T-988T :::::::: — ^ :^ : :^ : : : ; ■^ S88I-T88I 1-t y-t ro 088T-9Z8I '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. -^ C^ '. -^ 'T-^ '.'.'. \ '. '. lO 1=1 .2 ?m-im '.'.'.'.'.','.'. -^ '.'.'. -^ c-i W5 lo •* lo lo \o t^ r<5 ^ -H :;;;:: 0Z6I-9I6I so ...cs(NCN :::: ST6T-n6T !! ^ ! cs ^ r) ;; 1-1 ;;;;;;;; ; t>. 0161-9061 o . .i-li-Hv-li-Hi-Hi-H S06T-t06T :::::::-::::::::::: i-H 006T-968I fo ^^ CN .;.;;;;; ■ S68T-I68I m 068I-988I !;;;;; th ^ *-i ; i-H ;;;;;;; ; S88I-I88T ^-H »-H 088l-9i8I ■ • ^ i -■'"'!!!!! i ! i !!! ! - sm-\m 0i8T-998I r-4 S98T-I98I 098T-9S8T '.'.'.'.'.'.. ^-f '.'.'. ^-* '.'.'.'.','. '. C^l SS8I-IS8T 0S8I-9t8I '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ^^ ^-^ '.'. -^ '.'.','.'. '. m St8T-It8t 0t8I-9£8I S£8T-Te8I 0e8T-928T vH ;;;;;... ^H i3t[aBa JO 5281 aioDg lEJOX o 1 "3 of the buildings. Data presented later (Table 66) indicate that for a few years after 1912, when the present district superintendency was substituted for the old school commissionership, there was some interest on the part of some of the superintendents in better buildings. This is evidenced by the number of orders for condem- nation and alteration issued. However, since this law applied to all school buildings and would be more likely in practice to apply to the older ones, improvement in recent years cannot be largely attributed to the exercise by the district superintendent of the power to condemn or to require alteration. (2) Since 1887 there has been the statute regarding toilets known as the health and decency act. This law might afiEect the score of a one- or two-teacher building. However, applying as it did to all buildings without regard to date of construction, it follows that this law cannot account for the rapid improvement beginning between 1901 and 1907. (3) A flag and pole were required by law in 1898. Since only 10 points on the score card are allowed for these, and since the law applied to all buildings, this statute cannot be considered as of great significance in the general improvement of buildings. (4) In 1904, when the state educational reorganization took place, provision was made for state approval of new and remodeled buildings. The requirements that applied to one- and two- teacher buildings account for about 100 points on the score card, about 45 of which would not likely be found in most buildings erected earlier. There is some doubt as to whether the law gives the commissioner of education power to make other requirements, but whether or not this is the case it is true that the commissioner, through the building speciahsts of the Department, had an opportunity to advise on other matters commimities whose building plans were under con- sideration. Since these requirements applied only to new or radi- cally remodeled buildings it could readily be an important factor in the improvement beginning between 1901 and 1907. It is entirely likely also that the number of factors on which advice would be given would show a tendency to increase as time went on. (5) In 1916 the State Department issued an order requiring sanitary toilets (p. 50) in certain schools. Data collected in this 114 study show that about one-third of the one-teacher schools com- plied with this order and that where this was done improvement in certain particulars (see pp. 52-54) generally resulted. These new standards might effect the score of a building for as many as 30 points, and would therefore have an appreciable effect upon the score of a building. Aside from the fact that the order requiring these toilets exempted, among others, buildings that were likely to be condemned or remodeled, there is no evidence that the age of a building was a factor in determining the installation of the chemical toilets. This order therefore cannot account for the improvement since 1901-1907. In brief, then, it would appear that each of these requirements had influence in increasing the actual score of a building. It would appear that none of them except the law of 1904 can account for the relatively rapid improvement of the last quarter century. Data are not available that enable us to separate and measure the relative influence of legislation and the desire of the community for better things. As a matter of fact, the two probably act to- gether, for it is more than likely that a statute, especially one such as that of 1904, would tend to stimulate thought regarding better building standards on the part of not only state and county school ofiBcials but of local trustees and patrons as well. StiU less are there facts by which one can isolate and measure the components of these factors of legislation and education. Especially is this true of the second, for education of the community may include any or all of the following factors that stimulate people to think regarding their buildings: presence of a modern building in a community; leadership exercised by district superintendents; the power of the district superintendent to condemn, acting as a suggestion; state bulletins and inspections; state law; farm organizations; the increasing influence in community affairs of woman, who has shown herself especially interested in education; farm papers; local papers, etc. However, in spite of the complexity of the situation and the inadequacy of the data as a basis for analysis, it appears reasonable to conclude: (1) that wealth of community is a factor of some weight; (2) that date of construction has little influence until recent years when legislation and community interest together (probably the former largely) have been responsible for some im- provement. These three factors: education of the community to a realization of the need for better buildings; legislation with respect to adequate minimum standards; and state aid may now be con- sidered in detail. B. A MORE ENLIGHTENED PUBLIC OPINION NEEDED The writer is convinced that this is the fundamental cause of the present situation. If citizens demanded proper lighting, heating, and ventilation, sanitary toilet conditions, effective methods of cleaning, playgrovmd apparatus, large playgrounds, etc., these would come into more general existence without state standards or state aid. The superintendents consider it a major cause, and the analysis of data presented in the preceding section indicates that it has weight. There are progressive individuals in every com- munity, but the mass as yet remain unmoved by the realization that school building standards have made great forward strides in the last quarter century. The situation is readily understandable on a Uttle reflection. Approximately two out of every three school buildings in the state are one-teacher buildings. Of the 1,438 one- teacher buildings studied, only 6 have a score of 900 or above as indicating a reason- ably modern plant. As the farmer drives about he has thus about one chance in 240 of seeing a building that will impress him with the inadequacy of the one in his home district. He gives little attention to the larger buildings that he sees for the reason that he considers such to be quite beyond attainment. The suggestion, then, that his home school is "as good as the rest of them" is too strong to be resisted. Were he to meet frequently a modern building in a situation similar to his, he would undoubtedly be stimulated to want something better or at least would have the disquieting feeling that all was not as it should be. The fact that the farmer has in most cases seen this same building all his life, that he, his father, and sometimes his grandfather (the median age of one-teacher buildings is 51 years; while 25 percent of them are ii6 66 years or more old), attended the same school is additional reason for his complacency. The responsibility for leadership in securing a wider knowledge of modern building standards rests primarily in the State Depart- ment of Education. The citizens of New York, through the legis- lature, have created this organization because they have believed in education as a preparation for citizenship and because they have felt the need of a professional group to study the educational needs of the state, to enforce minimum standards wherever these have been provided, and above all to become the leader to new and better things in education. The direct agent of the State Department in the matter of the school plant is the Division of Grounds and Buildings. This division was established in 1915, though previous to that time building inspections were made through the Inspections Di- vision of the Department. The chief functions of this Division of Grounds and Buildings are: (1) Approval of plans for new build- ings, for remodeling of old buildings, and for additions to and repairs on present structures (where the cost is over $500) in cities of the third class, villages, and rural schools; (2) inspection of buildings that are unsafe or unsanitary; (3) inspection of buildings under construction where this seems desirable; and (4) certain advisory, educational, and leadership responsibilities, including: (a) con- ferences with school officials; (b) attendance upon special meetings called to vote appropriations for improving conditions when the local authorities so request; (c) inspection of completed buildings, also upon request, preliminary to final payment of contractor; (d) adoption of measures to interest communities in bettering the school plant. The Division employs four persons — a chief, an inspector, a con- sulting architect, and a stenographer. With the exception of the architect, added in 1921, the force has been of this size since the creation of the Division. Activities of the Division of an inspectorial and educational nature are fairly extensive. During the past year (1920-21) the inspector attended 69 school meetings, held 169 conferences with trustees and boards of education, inspected 181 school buildings, "7 and made tests of the heat and ventilation in 26 new buildings. He estimates that in approximately 65 percent of the cases the improvements recommended have been already carried out in full, in 15 percent in part, while in 20 percent nothing has been done. In performing his duties the inspector travels approximately 31,000 miles a year. About 8,000 letters were written by the Division in 1 920-2 1 . The Division supplies photostatic prints of building plans to officials who request them. This may become a most important service, especially to the poorer districts that are unable to employ an architect. Such prints have been prepared for 15 types of one- room buildings, 12 two-room, 2 three-room, 6 four-room, and a few larger buildings. During the school year 1919-20, 295 such prints were supplied; during 1920-21, 401 were furnished. The Division has issued, since 1911, the following bulletins: Date Title No. of copies Dec, 1911 Law Pamplilet 1, School Bldgs., Sites and School Dist. Bonds 4,850 Aug., 1912 11th Dept. Report 1915, vol. 3, School Build- ings and Grounds 5,000 May, 1913 Specifications for plans 3 and 4 200 March, 1917 Extract from vol. 3 of 10th ann. report 2,000 May, 1917 Extract from vol. 3 of Uth ann. report — Toi- let Facilities 2,000 June, 1919 Law Pamphlet 1, School Bldgs., Sites and School Dist. Bonds 2,000 Oct., 1919 Law, Rules and Regulations and General Infor- mation 1,000 Feb., 1919 Law, Rules and Regulations and General In- formation, Univ. Bui. 720 1,500 Total 18,550 Partially complete records in the office of the Division show that plans for remodeling, for making additions, for heating and ventila- tion, and for new buildings of all kinds were approved as follows: 1915, 129; 1916, 108; 1917, 86; 1918, 55; 1919, 165; 1920, 126. Such data give a general notion, at least, of the activities of the Division. It is clear that it is not only performing its inspectorial duties so far as size of staff permits, but is making an earnest effort to serve the people of the state in other ways. But there is need of unusual effort if school building facilities 1x8 are to be improved within a reasonable time. The dangers in a policy of state coercion were shown in the attempt to secure sani- tary toilets throughout the rural schools. Chief dependence must clearly be placed upon the policy of bringing the farmers themselves to demand improvement. The first step in such a program will naturally be the securing of facts regarding present conditions. The state should make a survey from time to time of certain phases of good housing, though the district superintendent is in a particularly strategic position both to secure the facts and to utilize them effectively. He may make a survey of all or part of the schools in his territory. Such a survey should be comprehensive, such as was undertaken in this study, covering all the important phases of a school plant, when the superintendent wishes to arouse the people to a realization of what they now have as compared with what modern hygienic standards require. The survey may deal with one or two phases of the plant only — e. g., toilets and blackboards — where there seems little hope of getting a comprehensive program of improvement accepted by the constituency. The more the superintendent can throw upon the patrons themselves the responsibility for securing such facts, even though they may not have scientific accuracy, the more effective his program is likely to be. Home Bureaus, Granges, Farm Bureaus, Parent-Teachers' associations may be utilized for this purpose. The proper use of such facts is of equal importance. Every legitimate avenue of publicity should be employed. The state may publish and distribute significant facts presented in an attractive and vivid manner. While the state has distributed during the last 10 years pamphlets to the number of 18,550, it should be noted that this number is not sufficient to meet the demand that ought to exist in a state having over 10,000 school buildings in rural sections, and the character of the bulletin is usually not such as to arouse interest on the part of the typical educational layman. Most of these bulletins contain the statutes regarding buildings, the rulings and the suggestions of the Division, together with a rather compre- hensive bibliography on building standards. Such bulletins are necessary in order to give the public professional information. It 1 19 would be well, however, if publications of a more popular sort, giving facts, illustrations, reasons for standards, etc., were made available to the general public. One of the publications of the Divi- sion, that for August, 1912, is a large volume of 440 9}4" x 12" pages, containing not only the material of the typical smaller bulle- tins, but giving besides several hundred illustrations of buildings and plans, together with much valuable statistical data regarding sanitary conditions, costs, number of buildings, etc. The difficulty with this volume is that it is too cumbersome and costly to attain a large circulation. Farm and local papers, weekly or monthly bulletins, even lantern slides and moving pictures may be utilized by local leaders to spread significant facts and other information regarding conditions. Some of these methods have been used by the Department but none have been so extensively employed as they might. All this publicity should result in discussion within the local social and professional organizations of means and methods of securing improvement. It is an unusual citizen indeed who will refuse a proper school home to children when he really understands conditions. One of the important tasks of the rural school leader is to collect and to present, tactfully yet persistently, facts that will accomplish this result. The writer has confidence that such a pro- gram would, within a few years, lead the majority of communities to condemn their own buildings. This state as well as others can give illustrations where persistent leadership has had exactly this effect (see some of the accompanying photographs). Briefly, then, the approach to this whole problem should be through an attempt to lead the community to demand better things rather than through legislation. In this way there may be built up in time that knowledge and that interest that will not only insure immediate reforms, but will provide the stimulus for constantly accelerated progress in educational affairs. ss £■ f ^+ fi j:i a > f! Oil G C. HIGHER AND MORE DEFINITE MINIMUM STANDARDS But we should not rely entirely upon popular education to ac- complish these results. The state has a responsibility regarding the education of its future citizens, and in meeting the responsibility it should and does set standards below which no community may be permitted to fall. 1. The Present Situation An analysis of such requirements in New York reveals an inde- finite and inconsistent situation. (a) In 1904 the law ^ provided that "noschoolhouse shall here- after be erected, repaired, enlarged, or remodeled in a city of the third class or in a school district, at an expense to exceed $500, until the plans and specifications thereof shall have been submitted to the Commissioner of Education and his approval indorsed thereon. Such plans and specifications must show in detail the ventilation, heating and lighting of such buildings." Further provision is made that the Commissioner shall not approve plans except when the following requirements are met: (1) At least 15 square feet of floor space and 200 cubic feet of air space for each pupil to be accommodated in each study and recitation room. (2) At least 30 cubic feet of pure air every minute per pupil. (3) The facilities for exhausting the foul or vitiated air to be positive and independent of atmospheric changes. (4) All halls, doors, stairways, seats, passageways and aisles and all lighting and heating appliances and apparatus shall be arranged to facihtate egress and afford adequate protection in. cases of fire or accident. (5) All exit doors shall open outwardly, and shall, if double doors are used, be fastened with movable bolts operated simul- taneously by one handle from the inner face of the door. (6) No stairway to be constructed with winding steps; no door to open upon a flight of stairs except where there is a landing at least the width of the door. ' Education Law, 1920, sec. 451. (7) All school buildings, except in New York City, having more than two stories, must be provided with fire escapes kept available during school hours and free from obstruction. (6) In addition to the above the so-called Health and Decency Act of 1887 required the trustees in school districts to provide "at least two suitable and convenient water closets or privies for each of the schools under their charge, which shall be entirely separated from each other and have separate means of access, and approaches thereto separated by a substantial close fence not less than seven feet in height. It shall also be the duty of the trustees to keep such out-buildings in a clean and wholesome condition.'" In union free school districts two such closets are to be provided and main- tained for each school. Failure "by the trustee to comply with the provisions of this section shall be sufficient grounds for their re- moval from office and for withholding from the district or city its share of the public funds of the State." (c) The law also requires that a United States flag be displayed upon or near every public school building during school hours, and at such other times as the school authorities may direct.* (d) The district superintendent has power to "make an order condemning a schoolhouse if he finds upon examination that such schoolhouse is wholly unfit for use and not worth repairing " ' (italics are not in the law) . When such decision is made the superintendent sends the order to the trustee of the district and a copy of it to the Commissioner of Education. This order is to state the sum which the superintendent considers necessary to erect a school building suitable to the needs of the district. When the order is received the trustee is to call a meeting of the voters of his district to consider the question of a new building. This meeting has the power to pass upon such questions as size of building and material to be used, but it may not reduce the estimate of the superintendent by more than 25 percent. Should the district vote no tax within 30 * days from the time of holding the first meeting to consider the question, the trustee is required to contract for the building of a schoolhouse and to levy the necessary tax, which tax shall not be ' Education Law, 1921, sec. 457. » Education Law 1921, sec. 710. » Education Law, 1921, sec. 456. larger than that estimated by the superintendent nor smaller than such estimate by more than 25 percent. The law also confers upon the district superintendent the power "to direct the trustees of any district to make any alterations or repairs to the schoolhouse or out-buildings which shall, in his opinion, be necessary for the health or comfort of the pupils," but the amount of such alterations is not to exceed $200 in any year. Likewise the superintendent may direct the trustee to make any repairs or alterations to school furniture or to provide new furni- ture if he deems the present furniture is insufficient or unfit for use and not worth repairing. Not over $100 per year may be in- volved in such an order. In brief then all schools must meet the standard of toilets and must display a flag {{b) and (c), p. 122); any school may be condemned by the district superintendent when he finds it "wholly unfit for use and not worth repairing," and the superintendent may direct alterations or repairs to the building not exceeding $200 per year or improvements or additions to the furniture not exceeding $100 per year. In cities of the third class and in school districts, new schools or schools being remodeled to the extent of $500 must meet the seven requirements stated in (a), p. 121. In addition, the Division of Grounds and Buildings has certain other require- ments and suggestions that are used in approving plans. In practice these requirements and suggestions have very great in- fluence in the approving of such plans as come to the State Depart- ment and doubtless have considerable influence in educating some communities to better standards. Does the State of New York go as far as it should in setting those standards that will provide adequate housing for its future citizens dmring their period of schooling? The answer is clear. In the first place the authority of the district superintendent to condemn a building is couched in most unfortunate language. It is an ex- tremely difficult matter to say when a building is "wholly unfit for use and not worth repairing." A building could violate practically every standard commonly accepted for school buildings and still not be unfit for use. Certainly there is little to make clear to the community that its facilities are unsatisfactory and there is no 123 encouragement for the superintendent to use the power of the state where a community has shown an unwillingness to act after advice has been given. While it is to be hoped that the exercise of such state authority will be relatively infrequent, there can be no doubt but that the authority to so act should be unequivocal. Table 66. — Orders tor Condemnation and Alterations Issued, 1912-1921' Year Condemna- tions Alterations Total Number Appealed Appeals Partly Sustained 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 192P 29 19 18 S 7 8 3 5 ■ 8 2 51 34 22 18 16 16 18 11 4 80 S3 40 23 23 8 19 23 19 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 Total 104 190 294 8 4 The effect of such indefiniteness is reflected in the small number of orders for condemnation and alteration issued from 1912-21. This is shown in Table 66. It must be understood that this number does not show the total number of buildings that have been im- proved, for there are some communities that have acted without receiving official orders to that effect. When one considers the small number of the orders that were appealed, one gets additional evidence that the situation was so bad as to be indefensible or that when the issue developed the progressive element of the com- munity was able to dominate. It is a matter of considerable sig- nificance in connection with the administration of the law to learn that none of the appeals were sustained by the Commissioner and ' From original orders on file in the office of the Law Division, State Depart- ment of Education. 2 Up to Sept. 15, 1921 124 that in those cases where the appeal was partially sustained it was done upon some basis other than the unfitness of the building, as, for example, the cost of the improvements, and opportunity to repair rather than rebuild. Table 67, showing the distribution of orders for condemnations and alterations, is interesting as showing the number of districts in which no orders have been issued during this period of almost ten years. Table 67. — Distribution of Okseks for Condemnation and Alterations Among the Supervisory Districts, 1912-1921 Number of Orders Issued Number of Supervisory Districts Number of Orders Issued Number of Supervisory Districts 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 108 40 22 11 11 4 2 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 3 2 1 2 1 Not only is the basis for condemnation indefinite, but such standards as are set by statute are quite inadequate. It is impor- tant to have the several standards now provided specifically for new buildings, but many others are needed. To set down spe- cifically what these standards should be is an intricate problem. We can doubtless agree that a good school plant should accomplish the three purposes that have been stated before, namely: to pro- vide those facilities that will make provision for — (1) proper intel- lectual development; (2) physical development; (3) safeguarding health and morals. But science has not fully demonstrated in many cases just what is necessary to accomplish these purposes, so that in lieu of such scientific standards we must fall back upon experience and well-established professional knowledge. Further- more, minimum standards must always be more or less a matter of expediency, for usually a state cannot enforce standards that are I2S too far in advance of actual practice and hence of public opinion. Standards must, therefore, always be a progressive matter. Recog- nizing these difl&culties, the writer nevertheless ventures to suggest that the State of New York should, within the next five years, hold for approximately the standards stated below. 2. Proposed Miotmum Standards for One- and Two-Teacher Buildings Except where otherwise stated, the specific requirements should be approximately those given in the standards used in scoring the buildings. The items here presented are numbered to corrfespond with the same items on the score card, and the values assigned are those that would be given on the score card. Items Credit Value 1. Size of class room 40 3. Window placement 35 4. Glass area 30 5. Shades 15 8. Color scheme 20 9. Blackboard (composition board also accepted) 30 12a.Pupils' desks 40 13. Seating arrangement 25 24. Heat and ventilation 70 26. Cleaning system 20 27. Water supply 60 29. Toilets (evaluated in terms of result rather than kind) 65 32. First aid outfit 10 34. Flag and pole 10 39. Condition of repair 30 41. Orientation 25 43. Size of grounds 25 550 To these 550 points of the score card might well be added — 36. Material of construction 25 37. Foundation 15 38. Roof 20 since the requirements on these points are the least that are likely to be found. This makes a total of 610 on the score card. It should be remembered, however, that not any 610 out of the 1,000 points would satisfy the minimum requirements, but only the ones indicated above. 126 These, then, represent the writer's judgment as to the least that New York should require in the way of a building and its permanent equipment in order to insure proper facilities for the pupil's physi- cal, intellectual, and moral development. But the ordinary com- munity should not be satisfied with these: it should aim at the 1,000 points of essential standard credit, while a really progressive community will provide those facilities that will justify from 250 to 300 points of additional credit. As to how far the minimum standards must be modified on grounds of feasibility can be de- termined only after the results of the educational campaign are evidenced. If the definite statement of these standards is post- poned for a period of, say, two years, and if the educational cam- paign has been effectively conducted, very little modification ought to be necessary. With such standards we have then met the serious difficulties in the present situation so far as they are due to state standards: the indefiniteness regarding the standards under which a district superintendent may condemn a building or order repairs or im- provements in the furniture; the lack of adequate minimum stan- dards for new or remodeled buildings and for additions; the almost complete lack of any standards for buildings that do not come under the law regarding new or remodeled buildings and yet clearly are not in the class that would justify an order for condemnation. D. FINANCIAL PENALTIES AND REWARDS The enforcement of minimum standards will be easier and progress beyond these standards will come more rapidly if the community has a financial incentive. If failure to meet minimum standards is met by a considerable reduction of state funds and if progress beyond these standards means more funds from the state, the enforcement of the minimum standards will in most communi- ties be automatic. I. A Suggestion of Procedure The presentation of a detailed plan for financing schoolhouses is not the responsibility of this Division of the Survey but of the 127 Division of Finance. It may be proper, however, to point out here the general procedure that may be followed. (a) Provision should be made that no community will fail to meet minimum standards regarding the school plant merely because of financial inabihty. Tables 56 to 60 show that there are some communities with comparatively little wealth that cannot provide proper facilities without an unduly high tax burden. Such com- munities should receive assistance from the state. Before such aid is actually paid the state should inspect the work to see that it conforms to the specifications of the contract. Any sound plan for state assistance will, of course, be based upon the development of all phases of desirable educational results, not upon any one. Therefore we may expect the state to safeguard its funds by refusing aid for buildings to small schools except where these are necessary because of topographical conditions. It is unthinkable that the state of New York would adopt a financial policy that would encourage the improvement and continuance of all the one-teacher schools now in the state. (J) A penalty should be established and enforced for any com- munity that fails, through neglect, to provide facilities at least equal to the state standards. Though the state now has authority under section 457 (4) to withhold public funds for failure to provide satisfactory toilets as defined by law (see Section "C" above), the law has been executed in only 9 cases since 1911. According to Department ofiicials it has been the policy of the Department to refrain from withholding public money until notice has been served and ample opportunity given to comply with the require- ments. Such warning is, of course, only a matter of fairness to the community, but in view of the toilet situation, as revealed by the facts collected in this study and implied in the sanitary toilet order of 1916, it is doubtful if such leniency, evidenced by the few cases of withholding funds, can be justified in the interest of education. Unless penalties provided by law are enforced strictly, yet with discrimination and justice, they might as well not exist. It is clear also that if the use of a penalty on buildings is to accomplish its purpose, such penalty should extend to all minimum standards, not to toilets alone. 128 (c) A community that exceeds the minimum standards should receive a financial reward. A plan for accomplishing this may be found in Dr. Updegrafl's report on finance. 2. What Would It Cost to Improve a Typical One-Teacher Building? To most communities this is an important question. In Table 68 is given an estimate of what it would cost to improve the school for which data are given on pages 23 to 26 to that point that would — (1) Meet the proposed minimum standards, and (2) meet the essential standards outlined for the score card. The figures here given are based upon costs for the autumn of 1921. They have been prepared largely by Supt. M. G. Nelson, of the fifth supervisory district of Delaware Co., who has taken local conditions into ac- count. For this reason variations in certain items are to be ex- pected for different communities. In the cost assigned each facility added there has been included the labor cost of installation. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that in a community where there is likely to develop in the near future a sentiment for consolidation no large sums should be spent on improving the present plant. Only the most serious difficulties should be met. It is clear also that, where it seems wise to continue indefinitely the present small schools, improvements will ordinarily be made gradually. What is important in such a situation is that the community decide whether remodeling the present plant rather than rebuilding would be most economical, then that community effort be directed to achieving the ends sought. This can be accomplished only by persistent leadership on the part of state officials and district superintendents. E. SUMMARIZING STATEMENT Thus have been presented what this investigation has shown to be the three fundamental factors in the New York school building situation: public opinion; state legislation; financial ability of the community. These factors suggest the points of attack in securing better conditions. The approach to the whole problem should be through leading 129 Table 68. — Estimated Cost of Improving a Typical One-teacher Building Item 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Size Shape Window placement . Glass area . . . . Shades Floor Walls Color scheme . Inside finish . . Blackboard . ■ - 11. 12a. 12b 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 20. 24. Bulletin board . Desks — pupils' . Desk — teachers'. . . . Seating arrangements . Closet Clock Fuel room Cloak room Library Heating and ventilation . 26. 27. Cleaning system . Water supply . . . 28. Artificial lighting . 29. Toilets 32. 33. 34. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. SO. SI. First aid outfit Mail box Flag and pole Foundation Roof Condition of repair . Position on grounds . . . Orientation Size of grounds Shape of grounds Shape and drainage. . . Condition Fencing Walks Playground apparatus. Needed Improvements Environment Accessibility . Total .... None. None. Labor and materials for secur- ing unilateral lighting. Included in "3." New shades. New. Replastering. Tinting. None. IS feet of 3K' composition with tray. IS feet of 3yi' slate board with tray. Pine covered with burlap. Repairs. New. Rearranging seats. None. Desk clock. Repairs. Room connected with sanitary toilets. None. Room heater with intake and outlet. Thermometer. Oiling floor. Bubbling fountain. 2 small mirrors. Paper towels (per year). Liquid soap and container. 2 Coleman gas lamps (300 can- dle power each). Sanitary with cloak rooms at- tached. None. Repairing. Slight repairing. Repainting inside and out. Siding replaced. None. None. 92 sq. rds. more land. None. None. None. Woven wire field fence Gravel. Swing. Teeter board. Sand pile. Horizontal bar. Volley ball and net. None. None. Estimated Cost to Meet Proposed Minimum Standards 00 $48.00 00 18.00 13.50 19.50 10.00 3!oo 125.00 .so 2.00 14.00 ibioo 2.50 350.00 3.50 "oo 8.00 5.00 55.00 5.00 75.00 Essential Standards $767.50 00 00 $48.00 00 18.00 100.00 53.00 13.50 00 25.00 2.00 10.00 25.00 3.00 00 3.00 25.00 00 00 125.00 .50 2.00 14.00 1.00 10.00 2.50 20.00 350.00 3.50 2.00 00 8.00 5.00 55.00 5.00 00 00 75.00 00 00 00 127.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 S.OO 10.00 30.00 00 00 $1,211.00 130 the people themselves to see the need for better things. The extent to which this leadership is effective will indicate how far it will be necessary to employ legislation in securing reasonable attainments in individual communities. Such leadership will at the same time determine what may be defined as "reasonable attainments," for the reason that legislation on this matter to be effective must represent an expression of the will of the working majority as to what is the least the state at any given time ought to require for the training of future citizens. Financial penalties, justly administered, are useful in securing enforcement in backward communities; state assistance to the financially weak makes a minimum standard fair; while state refunds for unusual effort reward the progressive for providing facilities above the minimum and so encourage improve- ment. It is thus apparent that these are interdependent factors, each tending to vivify the others. In seeking improvement this fact should not be overlooked. Lack of more complete success in New York has been due largely to too much dependence on legislation — and on legislation that is inadequate. 131 SURVEY OF NEW YORK STATE RURAL SCHOOLS The survey was organized with the following sections and directors: Administration and Supervision. C. H. Judd. Scliool Support. Harlan Updegraff. Teachers and Courses of Study. W. C. Bagley. School Buildings. J. E. Butterworth. Measuring the Work of the Schools. M. E. Haggerty. Community Relations. Mabel Carney. The results of the studies conducted by these directors and their associates have been embodied in a series of reports. The approximate dates at which these will be available for distribution are: Volume I. Rural School Survey of New York State. (Preliminary Report) May, 1922. Volume II. Administration and Supervision, October, 1922. The District System. Shelby. The Supervisory District. Brooks. The Community Unit. Works. Principles of Administration. Bobbitt. The State System of Examinations. Kruse. Health Education. Peterson. The State Schools of Agriculture. Holton. Junior Extension. Holton. Summary and Recommendations. Judd. Volume III. School Support. Updegraff. August, 1922. Volume IV. Teachers and Teacher Preparation. Bagley. September, 1922. Elementary School Curriculum. Brim. Community Relations. Carney. Volume V. School Buildings. Butterworth. June, 1922. Volume VI. The Educational Product. Haggerty. July, 1922. Volume VII. The Rural High Schools. Ferriss. August, 1922. (The administrative features of the high school were studied in cooperation with Dr. Judd, while teachers and curricula were developed under the general direction of Dr. Bagley.) Volume VIII. Vocational Education. Eaton. July, 1922. (Prepared under the direction of Dr. Bagley.) These volumes may be obtained at seventy-five cents each, post- paid, except Volume II, on Administration and Supervision, which will be one dollar. Only a limited edition will be printed and those wishing to make certain of securing copies may place their orders at any time. Joint Committee on Rural Schools, Ithaca, N. Y.