ED 087 897

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT 110PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCOMEWT RESUME

CE 000 988

Robertson, J. MarvinFacilities Evaluation in Vocational and TechnicalEducation.Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Center for Vocational andTechnical Education.National Inst. of Education (DH211), Washington,D.C.IS-1007327p.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. 20402

:11

MF-80.75 HC -$1.85*Educational Facilities; *Evaluation; FacilityGuidelines; Facility Improvement; FacilityRequirements; Literature Reviews; *TechnicalEducation; *Vocational Education

ABSTRACTIn the first section of this review the author

describes the purpose of vocational education facilities, gives hisown definition of the term, and discusses assumptions and guidelinesfor the evaluation of such a facility. The second section outlinesthe roles and responsibilities of those who should be involved inevaluation of facilities. The determination of educational needs aspart of evaluation for facilities and evaluation of facilities formthe third and fourth sections. Legal and safety considerations (withspecial reference to accessibility to the handicapped anddisadvantaged), extending the facility, sources of assistance, and asummary make up the remainder of the document. A 33-item biblicgraphyis included. (For comparison documents covering evaluation ofPrograms, Personnel, and Students in Vocational and TechnicalEducation, see CE 000 990, CE 001 133, and CE 001 153 respectively.)(KP)

I II

I/

O

OkU')

Worm*.Wes No. 100

FACILITIES

EVALUATIONIN

VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Yt 01111111.416, 0tOuCA1101. wattage*00004111 04111111011 OP

101/CMON1..1 DOC trY11.1 .41 110,04 art ProOlaf t C / M 000001Vi0 0010'000 0.0410000 000.4100.0041.0% or 40%*q.v. 41 4.0..#110/ v111 ow o.%loo1,0111 cx) %ay tittf 11A1,4 MotWO Of 10 1004 0.1101(14.A4 .14%4.0401 no

Out A041,0 tolliol fly 04),

ERICClearinghouse on Vocational

and Technical Education

Information Series No. 100

FACILITIES EVALUATIONIN

VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

J. Marvin RobertsonPARDNER SYSTEMS

Educational ConsultantsColumbus, Ohio

ERIC Clearinghouse on Vocational and Technical EducationThe Center for Vocational and Technical Education

Tho Ohio State University3960 Kenny Road Columbus, Ohio 43210

1973

The material in this publication was prepared pursuantto a contract with the National Institute of Education, U.S.Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Contractorsundertaking such projects under government sponsorship areencouraged to express freely their judgment in professionaland technical matters. Prior to publication, the manuscriptwas submitted to the American Vocational Association for crit-ical review and determination of professional competence.This publication has met such standards. Points of view oropinions, however, do not necessarily represent the officialview or opinions of either the American Vocational Associa-tion or the National Institute of Education.

FOREWORD

Vocational and technical education has enjoyed highvisibility during the past few years and with it increasedpressure to account for expenditures and justify programs.As a result, educators arc ever alert for effective means ofevaluating their educational programs. This publication andits three companion documents (Program Evaluation in Voca-tional and Technical Education, Personnel Evaluation Voca-riFiiTr=173a717=Icalucaton, and Student Evaluation inVocational and-Technical Education) provide

with a review and synthesis of the most importantworks in evaluation as it applies to vocational and technicaleducation.

In Facilities Evaluation in Vocational and TechnicalEducation, t e aut or oo s at t o ro es of t e ey p ayersin facility evaluation. Evaluation for facilities is ad-dressed as is evaluation of occupational facilities. Legaland safety considerations are pointed out and a list of fa-cility consultants and/or specialists is provided.

The profession is indebted to J. Marvin Robertson forhis scholarship in the preparation of this report. Recog-nition is also due Gordon Law, Department of Urban Education,Rutgers--the State University; and Donald L. Rathbun, Asso-ciate Director, American Vocational Association for theircritical review of the manuscript prior to final revisionand publication. Paul E. Schroeder coordinated the publi-cation's development, and Alice J. Brown and Paula Kurthprovided the technical editing.

Robert E. TaylorDirectorThe Center for Vocational and

Technical EducationERIC Clearinghouse on Vocational

and Technical Education

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

WHY EVALUATE FACILITIES? 1

More than Bricks 1

Definition and Scope 3

Assumptions 3

Guiding Principles 4

WHO IS INVOLVED?,

Community ParticipationRoles in Evaluation 6

EVALUATION FOR FACILITIES 8Survey27 Needs for Occupational Programs 9Space Utilization 9Financial Resources 10Summary 10

EVALUATION OF OCCUPATIONAL FACILITIES 11Checklists and Rating Forms 13Evaluative Criteria 13Space Utilization 15Educational Specifications 15

LEGAL AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS 15Accessibility to the Handicapped andDisadvantaged 16

EXTENDING THE FACILITY 16

SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE 17

SUMMARY 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY 19

INTRODUCTION

The purposc of this publication is to present informa-tion relative to the state-of-the-art in evaluation of facil-ities for vocational and technical education programs. Se-lected reviews-cf material relevant to facility evaluationare included. A search of the literature revealed limitedinformation and research under the specific heading of "eval-uation of vocational-technical facilities." Much of theliterature cited, relates to original planning of facilitiesor to evaluation cif educational facilities in general. Itis the author's position that these are relevant and adapt-able for the purpose of evaluating vocational-technical fa-cilities.

The first section of the paper describes the purpose offacilities, defines facility as used by the author and setsforth the assumptions and guidelines. The second sectionsuggests who should be involved in a facility evaluation anddiscusses evaluation for facilities and evaluation of facil-ities. ThP final secaas cover legal and safety considera-tions, extending the facility, and a summary.

The intended audience is the local vocational educatorwho finds himself responsible for planning or conducting alocal evaluation. It should be useful to teacher educators,state department personnel, arcs researchers who need a sourcedocument. The experienced evaluate will find the paper apoint of departure into the cemplex question of facilityevaluation.

WHY EVALUATE FACILITIES?

More Than Bricks

Of all the activities in which the American peopleengage as they live and work together in theirlocal communities, countries, and states, perhapsnone expresses in material form, so many aspects

1

of our culture as school-building construction. .

With a look toward the future, the school build-ing reflects the ambitions, the hopes, the aspi-rations, and the dreams of a people that isstriving to move forward and upward to a way oflife that is better, fuller, richer, and morerewarding than that which it now knows (AmericanAssociation of School Administrators, 1960).

The school building stands as a material commitment toeducation. The inclusion of funding for area vocationalfacility construction and equipment in the federal VocationalActs of 1963 may have been perceived by vocational educatorsas a long term future commitment to occupational educationby the U.S. Congress. Educators tend to believe that oncemoney is invested to house a program, money to operate thefacility will continue.

The enthusiasm for ideal educational facilities is dis-ciplined through competition.

Planned, financed, and constructed in the midstof the tensions and pressures of community life,the school building is tempered by the disciplinaryforces of competition. Competition for the publictax dollar is by no means the least of these dis-ciplinary forces. From the time the school build-ing is conceived as a needed educational facilityuntil the time it is completed and opens its doorsto a throng of eager and expectant children, itcompetes for the tax dollar with the highwayssorely needed to handle an ever-increasing amountof traffic, with the waste-disposal system necessaryfor a rapidly growing population, with communityparks and playgrounds essential for recreation andhealthful living, with the city hall or countycourthouse that must be remodeled or enlarged toenable civil government to function properly, andwith the construction of the new hospital that hasalready been delayed too long. Seemingly, thereis never enough money to do all that needs to bedone (American Association of School Administrators,1960).

The vocational educator is aware that occupational pro-grams must compete for the same educational dollar as other

2

educational programs and that many vocational programs re-quire more space, more expensive equipment, and may servefewer students per unit. Therefore, evaluation of the needfor and utilization of facilities for occupational educationis essential.

Evaluation of facilities and planning facilities are twoclosely related concepts. One might evaluate present facia-

, ities as a first step in planning future facilities or to de-termine the need for remodeling or construction. Literatureon planning can serve the needs of the administrator responsi-ble for evaluation even though no new construction is planned.

Definition and Scope

Facilities, as an educational environment, are more thanbuildings. In this publication, the term "facilities" in-cludes the building, equipment, the school site, and special-ized items such as land laboratories and on-the-job trainingsites.

Evaluation of facilities can be divided into two majorcategories--evaluation for facilities and evaluation of fa-cilities. Evaluation for facilities includes definingandstating the kind and extent of the educational program to beoffered and the development of long range plans to house theprogram. In vocational education evaluating for might in-clude manpower surveys, follow-up studies, and review of needsby an advisnry council.

Evaluation of school facilities involves the congruenceof a particular wilding, site, and equipment and the edu-cational program which is operated in the facility. Evalua-tion of, for example, would compare the existing facilitywith fEe needs of the occupational program being operated.Instructional needs, safety, and aesthetics might be consid-ered.

Assumptions

Meckley, et al., (1969) made important assumptions fora facility planning guide that are applicable to evaluationof facilities:

3

1) Major educational program decisions have orare being made including the content andmethod of instruction.

2) A cooperative relationship has been estab-lished with local agencies who are aware ofeconomic, political, and social conditionsthat must be taken into account.

3) Educational, economic, political, and socialplanning has revealed the approximate num-bers and kinds of students to be served.

4) Information is recorded for or has beentranslated into educational specifications.

5) Sufficient funds are or can be availableto support both facilities for and opera-tion of the desired occupational programs.

Guiding Principles

Meckley, et al., (1969) also suggest guiding principlesfor planning facilities that are applicable to evaluation offacilities for occupational programs:

1) The educational program is the basis forplanning space and facilities.

2) Space and facilities should be planned toaccommodate changes in the educational pro-gram.

3) The program should be planned to serve theneeds of a variety of groups in the commu-nity.

4) Space and facilities for the program can beextended through the use of community resources.

5) Safe and healthful housing must he providedfor all students.

6) Space and facilities for occupational prepa-ration programs should be considered in contextwith the total educational program of theinstitution and the community.

4

WHO IS INVOLVED?

The legal responsibility for the total education programincluding the evaluation of facilities, rests with the localboard of education. The local board and the superintendentmay well be able to develop an educational program that willmeet the needs of the community simply because they know thecommunity so well. It is possible for them to evaluate fa-cilities with the assistance of technical consultants andsell the resultant program to the community through publicmeetings and informational and publicity services. Manyschool districts have pursued such a policy successfully.However, many educators have successfully involved all whoare affected by the program in the evaluation of that program.

Community Participation

Public education is a community endeavor and the educa-tional facilities should emphasize and reflect the thinkingof the community. Some reasons for including the communityin planning that apply to evaluation are:

1) The best school program is that which bestmeets the needs of the local community. Asmany people as possible should take part instating those needs and determining ways inwhich they should be met.

2) It is important that as many citizens of thecommunity as possible understand the purposesand objectives of the school program so thatthey can also understand hvw any proposedconstruction may help achieve those aims andpurposes. If the building program comes outof wide community participation it is morelikely that these two objectives will be ac-complished.

3) Most building programs involve a bond campaign,and the public relations and publicity inci-dental to the bond campaigns are much morelikely to be successful if a large number ofpeople have been involved in developing eachprogram.

4) Many communities have grown so large that itis difficult for the board of education to betruly representative of the many interestswithin that community. The use of a planningcommittee thus extends the representativefunctions of the board of education (MichiganDepartment of Education, 1970).

Roles in Evaluation

Several authors suggest a team approach to planning thatis also applicable to evaluating facilities (Leu, 1965; Boles,1965; National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, 1964;St:evell and Burke, 1959). Recommended participants include:the board of education, the superintendent and his staff, thebuilding principal, teachers, pupils, custodians, lay citizens,specialists in specific areas of instruction, educationalconsultants specializing in facility design, architect ortechnical consultants, state department personnel, and cityand regional planners. The extent to which an evaluationteam would include representation from the above depends onthe size of the district and the purposes of the facilityevaluation.

Superintendent. The superintendent is the communityleader -in sc oo a fairs. His role requires him to coordinateevaluation of facilities, delegate tasks to his staff, advisethe board, and be a source of encouragement to his co-workers.Even though he may delegate the specific responsibility ofconducting an evaluation to the vocational director or otheradministrators, the superintendent sets the climate and makeskey decisions.

Teaching Staff. The determination of means for carryingout the educational objectives of a community is a profession-al concern. The teaching staff has competencies in teachingmethods, subject matter, the instructional environment, learn-ing processes and the relation of each to the facilities.This is expecially true of occupational programs where bothcontent and facilities are specialized. Few administratorsor school boards would consider an evaluation of facilitiesvalid without considerable input from the teaching staff.

Lay Citizens. The present trend is to tie in all com-munity interests with a citizens advisory council.. The

6

advisory council is a means of discovering unmet needs anddefining public sentiment as to the demand for services(Strevell and Burke, 1959).

Byram and Robertson (1371) propose five purposes for acitizens' committee for vocational program evaluation. Oneof those purposes is "To assist, where appropriate, in ap-praisal of facilities and equipment for vocational education."

Suggested criteria for membership on a citizons committeeinclude:

1) Interest in the school and its program--whichmay be demonstrated by assistance on a cooper-ative occupational education program and/orby helping with field trips.

2) Willingness to serve, and with time to giveto committee activities.

3) Confidence on the part of citizens in theperson's judgment--which is not always pos-sible to determine in a suburban fringearea, or in a community with a rapidlychanging power structure.

4) Ability to communicate information andideas to the community and to the committee.

5) Knowledge of a field of work and/or workexperience in the community.

6) Knowledge of employer requirements andneeds for employees, particularly beginningworkers--including persons currently workingwith beginning workers.

7) Knowledge of the needs, interests, andaspirations of students (Byram and Robert-son, 1971).

State Department Personnel. More assistance in facilityevaluation is generally available from state personnel inoccupational education than is generally true in some othercontent areas. State guides for buildings and equipment areavailable in most states from vocational education divisions.

The key reasons for involving the state department of educa-tion include: (1) They are a major funding source for con-struction and equipment, (2) they approve the "standard"vocational program, and (3) specialists in most vocationalareas are available.

Specialized Consultants. Consultants with specific ex-pertise in school facilities; architects; and technical ex-perts in safety, fire hazards, lighting, and construction areavailable and should be called upon in a comprehensive eval-uation of facilities for occupational educators.

EVALUATION MR FACILITIES

The evaluation of occupational facilities should includea determination of present and future needs, if the facilitiesare to be congruent with the educational needs. Thus thefirst step should be the determination of educational needs.Typical phases of a school plant needs study are proposed byLeu (1965).

1) Identify the problem.

2) Outline and delimit the scope of the study.

3) Organize the human resources to be utilized.

4) Gather facts and information.

5) Analyze and evaluate data.

6) Develop tentative recommendations.

7) Refine, coordinate, and modify the tentativerecommendations in cooperation with othercommunity planning agencies.

8) Report the findings and recommendations.

9) Take action on the survey recommendations.

10) Review and revise the recommendationsperiodically.

8

Methods of conducting school plant surveys are describedby Boles (1965); Strevell and Burke (1959); and Leu (1965).Examples of surveys for post-secondary programs includeMcGuffey's (1965a) enrollment study for the Lively AreaVocational Technical Center in Florida. McGuffey's (1965b)study of the Gainesville, Georgia school facilities is anexample of a grade one to 12 systemwide survey conducted bya specialized consultant.

Surveying Needs for Occupational Prog rams

Planning for occupational programs adds the need formanpower information to the usual pupil potential populationdata. If this has not been accomplished at the time of theschool facilities survey, a survey and plan for occupationalprograms should be realized first. The reader will find thefollowing references helpful: Planning for Shops and Labo-ratories (North Carolina..., 1967), Manual for School Ailminis-n717573--cm School Plant Planning (rennessee..., 1964), andPreliminary Guide for Planning a Secondary School BuildingProgram (Texas Education Agency, 1969).

Space Utilization

Knowledge about the utilization of present space is es-sential to determining future needs. It is also a means ofevaluating the effectiveness of present facilities. Thebasic functions of space utilization studies are to deter-mine how much space is being used and how well it is beingused.

Russell and Doi (1957) have developed a manual usefulfor post-secondary space utilization studies. Janevich (1962)identifies the factors that may cause low use of facilitiesas:

1) Uneven distribution of classes by days andhours,

2) Length of the week,

3) The school year,

4) Division of curriculum units,

9

5) Class occupancy equivalent to credits,

6) Laboratory space,

7) Inflexible classrooms (i.e., rigidity, toolarge in size),

8) Proliferation of courses,

9) Proprietory attitudes of certain departments,and

10) Self-pride which demands "new buildings."

Space utilization is a special problem for vocationalprograms that may require large specialized shops and expen-sive equipment for quality instruction. Teachers are alsospecialized and enrollments may be low for advanced sections.

Financial Resources

The study for occupational facilities should include anassessment of sources of funds to build and equip neededhousing for programs. Federal and state funds are sometimesmore available for occupational programs than for some otherprograms. These funds may be added to local funds to includeoccupational facility needs in a total building program.

Sharing of facilities with adjacent systems or formingmultiple districts for area vocational programs may be ex-plored (Russo, 1966).

Summary

The fundamental concern in evaluating for occupationalfacilities is to insure that the educationaIWeeds of thecommunity dictate the natnre of the facilities. Additionalconcerns include planning enough flexibility to permit modi-fications over time. A community manpower survey, communityparticipation in evaluation, use of technical consultants,and a continuing long range plan can help assure that occu-pational facilities are adequate to meet the needs of targetpopulations.

10

EVALUATION Qr. OCCUPATIONAL FACILITIES

Lay advisory committees have been used to evaluate ex-isting facilities with the assistance of school personnel,consultants, and technical advice. Basically the evaluationshould answer the following questions (Michigan Departmentof Education, 1970).

1) Is the school safe?

a) Is it safe from fire and the panic arisingfrom fire? Are exits adequate? Can occu-pants be trapped?

b) Is it safe from traffic hazards? Fromconditions in the building or on the play-ground which might result in injury?

c) Is it removed from busy highways or rail-roads?

d) Is the playground located and planned sothat children cannot be hurt while leavingor entering?

e) Is the building safe from a health stand-point? Is it clean and sanitary and capableof being kept so?

f) Is it well lighted, well heated and wellventilated, and does it have suitablemodern plumbing?

g) Are toilet facilities and drinking foun-tains conveniently located?

Does the school plant provide adequate facil-ities for the education program desired?

a) Are the classrooms large enough to allowthe teacher to conduct many kinds of activ-ities in them?

b) Are the classrooms and special rooms welllocated so that the noisy rooms are in one

11

part of the building where the noisesdon't disturb other classes? Can chil-dren move easily and without confusionfrom one room to another?

c) Have the rooms been planned so that theycan be changed or so that additions canbe made to the building that would belogical and in keeping with the archi-tecture of the building?

d) Are special rooms provided as needed forthe desired program?

e) Is the school site large enough to accom-modate the activities desired?

3) Is the school plant accessible.?

a) Is the building located so that it con-forms to board policies regarding acces-sibility of school to the youngsters?

b) Do high school youngsters spend two hoursor less a day on buses?

4) Is the school plant economical?

a) Is it properly located and spaced withreference to other schools so that schoolsare neither too close to each other,which is uneconomical, nor too far apartwhich does not adequately serve all areas?

b) Is each school effectively planned with-out waste of space and facilities?

c) Is the school easy to keep clean, toheat, and to operate both day and nightwith a minimum of janitorial service,fuel and repairs?

Is the school plant attractive?

a) Is it the kind of building that will makechildren feel comfortable, happy, andeager to learn?

12

b) Is it comfortable and attractivelydecorated?

c) Is the architecture of the buildingsimple, yet tasteful and in generalkeeping with the neighborhood in whichit is located?

d) Is the site attractively landscaped andwell maintained?

Strevell and Burke (1959) identify five objectives forsurveying the existing plant: (1) inventory of availablespace usable for specific purposes, (2) structural evaluation,(3) educational values, (4) renovation and modernization, and(5) orderly adjustment to eventual master plan.

Checklists and Rating Forms

Strevell and Burke (1959) review scales and forms forinspecting the physical plant. The inspection record givesfactual evidence to support the evaluation. The person sur-veying the building should be familiar with locally acceptedstandards and expert in applying educational principles tofeatures of the physical plant. A checklist of common defi-ciencies of sub-standard facilities is included in the sur-vey record.

Published school-plant survey guides that might assistin evaluation include: Standards for the Evaluation of Seco_ndaryy School Buildings see W , itizens ^or 'ook forEvaluating 'ochooi Buildings (Landes and Sumption, 1951), andSchool Plant Rating Forms (Linn and McCormick, 1956).

An objective inspection of the physical plant and itsenvirons will produce some factual information. The recordeddata have to be correlated with other phases of the evalua-tion of occupational facilities before recommendations aremade.

Evaluative Criteria

Accreditation organizations, state departments of edu-cation, and the American Vocational Association (AVA) have

13

included facility evaluation in evaluative criteria for occu-pational education.

Evaluative Criteria for Vocational-Technical Programs(Reynolds, et al., 1967) includes procedures used by thePennsylvania Department of Public Instruction. Criteria areincluded for the school plant as well as for classroom andlaboratory facilities for each occupational program. Eachgeneral standard or practice for good physical facilities israted excellent, average or in need of improvement.

The National Study for Accreditation of Vocational-Tech-nical Education (Ash, 1972) conducted by the American Voca-tional Association includes facility evaluative criteria.Each instrument is divided into three logical parts:

1) Distinguishing Characteristics-an itemizationof characteristics synthesized from a varietyof sources, stating the characteristics thatdistinguish vocational and technical educationwithin the community.

2) Objectives--what they are and how well they arestated and used; how suitable they are for theclientele; and how well they are achieved.

3) Structure and Means for establishing and achiev-ing objectives; the organization, framework,resources, and processes needed to plan, conduct,and evaluate quality vocational-technical edu-cation.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools was thefirst regional accrediting agency to form a Committee on Occu-pational Education and develop separate evaluative criteriaand evaluative procedures for vocational and technical edu-cation. The committeeis now the Commission on OccupationalEducation. Facilities are an essential and integral part ofthe total system evaluation. The process includes both selfevaluation by school- and community, and evaluation by a teamof outside experts on the school site. The instruments at-tempt to present some indicators of success that have beenpointed out regarding vocational and technical education.

14

Space Utilization

The earlier discussion of space utilization for facil-ities revolved around the need for additional schaOT build-ings. Space utilization of facilities is concerned withefficient use of the existing facility. The same surveytechniques, problems of under utilization, and unique aspectsof occupational programs applies to ongoing evaluation of theutilization of existing facilities.

Good management would indicate the need for an ongoingrecord of facility utilization. This might include a perpupil, per hour, per credit use of rooms as well as a recordof the frequency of use of media and audio visual equipment.

A record of student use of the specialized machineryand equipment essential to quality occupational instructionwould indicate priority needs and prove useful when request-ing new or replacement equipment.

Educational Specifications

The recognized method of evaluating the congruence ofinstructional goals and school facilities is the use of writ-ten educational specifications. However, it is more commonto use educational specifications when planning a new build-ing and to forget their utility when evaluating existingfacilities.

Guidelines for occupational facilities that gather infor-mation for writing educational specifications were preparedby Meckley, et al. (1969). Examples of educational specifi-cations that would be helpful to one preparing new guidelinesinclude those of the North Carolina State Board of Education(1968). The American Vocational Association has also devel-oped guidelines for uniting educational specifications forvocational, technical, and practical arts programs.

LEGAL AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

School facilities are required to meet minimum codes forcomfort and safety. As regulations differ by locality, the

15

evaluator should become aware of specifics that apply in thesituation at hand. State governments, state industrial safe-ty personnel, local fire personnel, and state departments ofeducation may each have regulations that apply. Most statedepartments of education will have a compilation of stateregulations and of agencies that enforce them. Their assist-ance will be needed by the local evaluator.

Accessibility to the Handicapped and Disadvantaged

Increasingly, state legislatures are passing laws thatrequire new buildings to be constructed to provide accessi-bility to the handicapped. The regulations may require rampsfor wheelchairs, wider doors, special restroom facilities,and elevators to upper floors (Michigan Department of Edu-cation, 1970). With federal vocational legislation encour-aging vocational education to serve the handicapped and dis-advantaged, an evaluation of existing facilities shouldinclude a look at accessibility.

Location of the school plant may be critical to program-ming for the disadvantaged. Transportation has proved to bea real barrier to enrollment and attendance of the disadvan-taged. The lower income individual is more likely to dependon bus transportation and less likely to understand bus sched-ules and transfers. The best designed facility is of no useto clients that cannot or will not travel to the facility.

EXTENDING THE FACILITY

The community contains resources that can extend theusefulness of occupational facilities. Traditionally, variouskinds of cooperative and on-the-job training programs haveconducted skill training in the community. In some communi-ties, business and industrial facilities have been made avail-able to the school after hours.

Community resources, although a welcome extension of theschool, should be evaluated on the same criteria as otherschool facilities.

16

SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE

Much of the information needed to evaluate occupationalfacilities is technical and/or specialized. Sources of as-sistance include:

1) State Department of Education: Specialists inoccupational education, specialists in educa-tional facilities, compilations of regulations.

2) Consultants: Specialists in planning andevaluating educational facilities.

3) Technical consultants: Architects, engineers,safety specialists, and fire marshalls.

4) American Vocational Association (AVA).

5) Facility research groups, including theCouncil of Educational Facility Planners.

SUMMARY

The evaluation of facilities for occupational education,or any other educational facility, may be summarized withthese guiding principles:

1) The purpose of all elements of a school plantis to facilitate the desired school program.

2) Any study of school facility needs should bean impartial overview of the needs of the schooldistrict; no geographical area can be overlooked.

3) Facilities should provide for and be fair toall population elements.

4) The first obligation of a survey of needsis to suggest the best possible utilizationof all existing facilities.

17

S) Any immediate need must be seen in termsof the long range plan.

6) Recommendations must be financially realistic.

7) Conclusions should not over reach the data.

8) The report should be written in a form thatmakes it easy to review and revise (Boles,1965).

The value of a school facility is dictated by the edu-cational program. To the individual trying to find suitablehousing for an innovative program, this statement may seemmythical. However, curriculum and methods of instructionwill always be more flexible than the facility.

18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association of School Administrators. PlanningAmerica's School Buildings. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation of School Administrators. 1960.

. Schools in America. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation of School Administrators. 1967.

Ash, Lane. National Study for Accreditation of Vocational-Technical Education. Washington, D.C.: American Voca-tional Association. 1972.

Boles, H.W. Ste b Ste. to Better School Facilities. NewYork: Ho t, ine art, an nston, nc.

Byram, Harold, and Robertson, Marvin, comps. Locally DirectedEvaluation of Local Vocational Education Programs. A'anua or , ministrators, eac ers, an 1 izens.Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education,Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1971.107 pp. ED 067 479, document not available from EDRS.

Castaldi, Basil. Creative Planning of Educational Facilities,Second Edition. Arlington, VA: College Readings, Inc.1972.

ird

Department of Public Instruction. Planning Together for BetterSchool Buildings. Bulletin Number 412 (Rev.). Lansing,MI: Department of Public Instruction. 1965.

'Bibliographical entries followed by an ED number aregenerally available in hard copy or microfiche through theEducational Resources Information Center (ERIC). This avail-ability is indicated by the abbreviations MF for microficheand HC for hard copy. Order from ERIC Document ReproductionService (EDRS), P.O. Drawer 0, Bethesda, Maryland 20014.Payment must accompany orders totaling less than $10.00.Documents available from the Government Printing Office maybe obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

19

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Facilities. Design Needsof the Physically Handicapped. A Selected Bibliography.Madison: ERXt Ciiaringhouse on Educational Facilities,University of Wisconsin. May, 1970. 38 pp.ED 037 992 MF $0.65 HC $3.29.

Janevich, John X. To Build or Not to Build. A Resort on theUtilization an annin o nstructiona aci ities inma o eges. few 'or :

Inc. March, 1962. 74 pp.HC $3.29.

ucationa aci ities a sED 015 718 MF $0.65

Landes, Jack L., and Sumption, Merle R. Citizens' Workbookfor Evaluating School Buildings. Danville, IL: TheInterstate. 1951.

Larson, Milton E., and Blake, Duane L. Planning Facilitiesand E ui ment for Com rehensive Vocational 'ducationro rams or t e uture. ina 'e . ort o ins:o ora o tate Iniversity. pri 0. 235 pp.ED 040 293 MF $0.65 HC $9.87.

Leu, Donald J. Planning Educational Facilities. New York:The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc.1965. 121 pp. ED 030 272 MF $0.65 HC $6.58.

Linn, Henry H., and McCormick, F.J. School Plant RatingForm. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col-MIT, Columbia University. 1956.

McGuffey, C.W. Master Plan Study of School Facilities; Re-port to the Board of Education of the mail County Schools,Gainesville, Georgia. Tallahassee, Tr: The AssociatedConsultants in Education. 1965.

, et al. The Enrollment Potential of the Leon-Wakulla Community Junior College and-the Lively AreaVocational Technical Center. Tallahassee,171: TheAssociated Consultants in Education. 1965.

Meckley, Richard F., et al. A General Guide for PlanninFacilities for Occupations reparation rograms. inalReport. Research and Development Series Nb. 16. Colum-bus: The Center for Vocational and Technical Education,The Ohio State University. June, 1969. 87 pp.ED 030 771 MF $0.65 HC $3.29.

20

Michigan Department of Education. School Plant PlanningHandbook. Bulletin 412 (Rev.). Lansing: MichiganDepartment of Education. January, 1970.

Michigan State Legislature. Making Facilities Accessiblefor the Physically Handicapped. Act No. 1 of the PublicActs of 1966. Lansing: Michigan State Legislature.1966. 18 pp. ED 024 249 MF $0.65 HC $3.29.

National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. NCSC Guidefor Plannin School Plants. East Lansing, MI: Nationalounce on Schoolhouse onstruction. 1964. ED 017 118,document not available from EDRS.

Nerden, Joseph T. Vocational-Technical Facilities for Sec-ondary Schools: A Plannin,g 1ni.de. Columbus, OH:Council of Educational Facility Planners. October, 1968.102 pp. ED 029 984 MF $0,65 HC $6.58.

New Jersey Department of Education. Planning Guidelines forVocational and Technical Education Facilities. Trenton:New Jersey Occupational Research and Development Branch.1969. 23 pp. VT 008 649, MF available in VT-ERICSet ED 049 382.

North Carolina State Board of Education. Educational Speci-fications, School Planning Series-3. Pub-No-411.Raleigh: Division of School Planning, Department ofPublic Instruction, North Carolina State Board of Edu-cation. May, 1968. 25 pp. ED 024 230 MF $0.65HC $3.29.

Planning for Shops and Laboratories. Raleigh:Division of School Planning, North Carolina State Boardof Education. [1967.] 13 pp. ED 024 232 MF $0.65HC $6.58.

Odell, C.W. Standards for the Evaluation of Secondary SchoolBuildings. Edward Brothers, rhc. 1950.

Oregon State Department of Education. Planning VocationalAviculture Facilities. Salem: Oregon State Departmentof Education; and Corvallis: Oregon State University.1966. 27 pp. ED 017 639 MF $0.65 HC $3.29.

21

Reynolds, Harris W., et al. Evaluative Criteria for Voca-tional Technical Pro rami7--Prirrisburg: Bureau of Cur-t cu um anning an c ool Evaluation, PennsylvaniaState Department of Education. 1967. 135 pp.ED 022 861 MF $0.65 HC $6.58.

Russell, John Dale, and Doi, James I. Manual for Studies ofS.ace Utilization in Colle es and Universities. Regist./

missions S icers, merican ssociation o olleges.1957. 140 pp. ED 020 617 MF $0.65 HC $6.58.

Russo, Michael. Area Vocational Schools. Washington, D.C.:Agricultural Education Branch, U.S. Office of Education,Department of Health, Education and Welfare. June, 1966.7 pp. ED 024 247 MF $0.65 HC not available from EDRS.

Schmitt, Marshall L., and Taylor, James L. Planning and De-signing Functional Facilities for Industrial Arts Edu-cation. Washington, D.C.: (Mice of Education,ITZNYTMent of Health, Education and 'Welfare: 1968.55 pp. ED 026 522 MF $0.65 HC not available fromEDRS. Available from the Government Printing Office,FS5.251:51015, $0.45.

Strevell, Wallace H., and Burke, A.J. Administration of theSchool Building Program. New York: McGraw-Hill 3ookCo. 1959.

Tennessee State Department of Education. Manual for SchoolAdIistratorsonScdrimin!. Nashville:11TeireT-tateDeETen-tmento.ucatfcin. 1964. 54 pp.ED 024 226 MF $0.65 HC $3.29.

Texas Education Agency. Preliminary_puideforivaSecondaryScholdBuiITEFTYUgYdff7--RTVIdJiihE-I9-69.

'Texasexas ucation Agency. June, 1969. 58 pp.ED 037 947 MF $0.65 HC $3.29.

Widdall, Kenneth W. Selected References for Planning HigherEducation Facilities. Columbus, OH: Council of Edu-cational Facility Planners.. 1968.

22 * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING COCO 1974- 757-913 / 5903