xt7mpg1hmw6z https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7mpg1hmw6z/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1952-06 bulletins  English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education  This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "A Look at Kentucky's School Buildings and Facilities", vol. XX, no. 4, June 1952 text 
volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "A Look at Kentucky's School Buildings and Facilities", vol. XX, no. 4, June 1952 1952 1952-06 2022 true xt7mpg1hmw6z section xt7mpg1hmw6z , .-.’14,A:.-.c'su'tlo"-'¢'n“ ..............

-...-,

     
 
 
 
    
    
 
   
   

Commonwealth of Kentucky 0

EDUCATIONAL BULLETIN

 

 

 

 

 

A LOOK AT KENTUCKY’S
’ SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

" ‘ h; I" ‘~\
, . I c
x -\ “I‘m 3/;3
r.” " , . \r‘)

..
, ,1, ,3) ‘

I 1," 1w]? E Q’ \y,‘
J ' ‘ I it" t ’A‘ I

 

Published by

j DEPARTMENT cur- EDUCATION

WENDELL P. BUTLER.
Superintendent of Public Instruction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. ISSUED MONTHLY

Entered as second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at
Frankfort. Kentucky. under the Act of August 24. 1912.

Vol. XX JUNE, I952 No. 4

   

  

G
0,

 

 FOREWORD

Herewith is submitted a brief resume of the report of the
School Facilities Survey.

The survey was inaugurated in February, 1951 under the
supervision of Mr. Gordie Young and direction of Dr. Robert Mills.

Kentucky’s report was completed and filed with the U. S.
Office of Education in early January, 1952, and was included in
the first twenty—five states covered by the First Progress Report
of the Office of Education.

The second phase of the survey is being carried on by the
Division of Research and Statistics:

Mr. Boswell B. Hodgkin, Director
- Dr. Robert R. Martin, Assistant Director

Mr. Robert L. Greene, Educationist
Mr. R. F. Flege, Educationist

Irma Johnson
Paula Webster

Since the Survey Staff can work efficiently only With the
cooperation of the superintendent of the district, the Survey Staff
is making appointments upon invitation of the superintendents.

WENDELL P. BUTLER
Superintendent of Public Instruction

 

 

 

 

 

 .1 ; , :55. . :LRELLL : x . :_ ;é‘...._.; L‘

 

 

 

  

 

 

APPRECIATION

Governor Lawrence \V. \Vetherby is to be commended for his 3
interest in the survey as evidenced by‘his willingness to allocate
funds to match the Federal appropriation to carry out the first
phase of the survey in 1951 and likewise for including in the

biennium budget funds for carrying on the second phase of the
survey.

 

 

209

 

 

 

 

 

 

 THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SURVEY - S,

The School Facilities Survey, the first phase of which was
completed as of December 31, 1951, is being made under authoriza-
tion of Public Law No. 815. The Survey in Kentucky is part of a
nationwide attempt to obtain factual information on school facili-
ties so that intelligent and sound plans of action can be provided
on local, state, and national levels at one and the same time.

The President recognized the necessity for a study of school
plant needs and in his 1950 budget message said:

“We know that a Shortage of school buildings exists in many
parts of the country as a result of wartime deferment of construc—
tion and the increase in the school—age population. XVe do not know
the over-all extent of the shortage, the particular areas in which it
exists, and whether State and local governments can alleviate it
without special Federal aid for construction. in order to provide
an adequate factual basis for further consideration of the problem,
I ask the Congress to authorize a survey of educational building
needs and the adequacy of State and local resources available to
meet those needs.”

A large part of the information for the first phase of the survey
was obtained by means of forms delivered to superintendents or
their representatives at area meetings arranged by the director of
the survey. These forms giving the detailed information were com-
pleted by superintendents in the smaller districts and by principals
or other designated persons in the larger districts

In view of the complicated forms, the varying judgments, and
different concepts of the several types of persons completing them,
it is only natural that some inaccuracies and inconsistencies exist in
the overall picture as given by the survey. Kentucky administrators
are to be commended for their effort in presenting a true picture
of their districts. ,

The data contained in the first phase of the report provided

 

. . , . p3
the Office of Education and the State Department of Education he.
with: (1) Factual information 011 the date of construction of school s
. . . . . . . P‘
plants along With their educational utility, capaCity, safety, per- qu
manency, and cost, (2) Data relative to pupil transportation, (3)
Determination of school facility needs in the State for the school 5 h
. year ’52—’53, and (4) An investigation of the adequacy of local and S
State resources available to meet needed school facilities require- 3“:
(

merits.

210

 

 

 IY -

hich was
.uthoriza-
part of a
DO]. facili-
provided
110.

)f school

in many
3onstruc—
tot know
which it
eviate it
provide
problem,
building
ilable to

e survey
.lents or
'ector of
are com-
:incipals

nts, and
lg them,
exist in
istrators
picture

.rovided
lucation
f school
ty, per-
ion, (3)
3 school
cal and
require-

The data reported represent totals derived from both local and
State resources.

The survey report was in three parts.

A. An inventory of existing school facilities by attendance
centers and local administrative units including:

1.

to

3.

Factual data on rooms, areas, capacity, date, and type
of construction.

Evaluation as to educational adequacy, safety and per—
manency of facilities.

Data on pupil. transportation.

B. The overall state-wide need for the construction of school
facilities by capacity, space, and cost.

1.

to

To relieve overcrowding and eliminate half—day, part—
time, or staggered sessions.

To replace, remodel, or improve obsolete, improvised,
and unsafe facilities.

To provide facilities made necessary by current or
planned district reorganization.

C. The adequacy of state and local resources to meet school
requirements :

l .

if!)

The extent to which local school administrative units
have used their present legal taxing and bonding capac-
ities for school construction.

Present state laws relative to financing capital outlay
for schools.

Present pattern and demands of state-aid for con-
struction.

Feasibility of making available increased resources for
school construction through legislative or executive
action or both.

Laymen and educators alike have long known that during the
past two decades schools have been caught between the upper and
nether millstones of economic inflation and wartime conditions re-
Spectively with the result that not only were current stresses inade-
quately met but no provisions could be made for the future.

The completed first phase of the survey provides some startling
facts about Kentucky’s schools. These facts can well be used to
Provide background and information needed to establish proof of
need of federal aid to education especially on a capital outlay basis.

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

DID YOU KNOW THAT:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
   
   
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
  
  

5,013 school plants housed 52,133 pupils in 19:30—51.

3,004 oneq'oom schools are still in use.

872 two— and three-room schools are in use.

20’}? of l\'entucky’s children are, in l, 2, and 3 room schools.
lfH combustible two story building's house 32,880 children.
51 combustible three story buildings house 22,517 children.
205,326 children are housed in combustible building's.

3,467 schools are on sites of less than oneiacre.

963 school sites have more than 100 pupils to the acre.

80% of the school buildings in Kentucky do not have central
heat.

60% of all elementary children are housed in these buildings.

12?" of l\’entucl1 r; )1 >4 >44 >1 5;

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRANSPORTATION
l 200,101 I Pupils transported
i .
i I 57,961 I .In privately owned or common carrier 1
l
| 135,226 In school owned buses l
1 BUSES IN USE
1,605
% Ky. % 25 States
5 No. 285 1 year old 17.76 17.76
t No. 246 1—2 years old 15.3 13.96
_ [ No. 207 2—3 years old 12.89 14.14
20 states ” No. 220 3—4 years old 13.7 13.5
, No. 274 4-5 years old 17.07 14.7
.1 by bus. ‘ No. 151 5-6 years old 9.4 6.39
ran'e with ' No. 127 6-10 years old 7.9 16.8 ‘
bi , No. 95 over 10 years old 5.9 7.15 ‘
entucky s :
in the 25 Value of buses $3,379,036
SCHOOL BUSES NEEDED ‘
7 1,164
393 To replace obsolete buses j
’i 195 To improve and extend Service i
T 113 To accommodate new consolidations 3
394 To convert from private to publicly owned
78 To aecommodate increased enrollments
{ $4,724,337 Estimated cost of needed buses
235

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

SECONDARY BUILDINGS

The accompanying graph shows that 14.7% of Kentucky’s
secondary buildings are combustible and M470 semi-fire, resistive.
Data, from 17 states involving 6,071,195 pupils show that 25% of
buildings housing secondary pupils are combustible.

Kentucky’s secondary buildings are considerably above the
secondary average of 17 states while her elementary buildings are
much below the average of the same 17 states.

FIRE RATINGS

{SECONDARY BUILDINGS)

 am 3311;]
9111 M00
10 7/ng
umusgsax
s upmu

FIRE RATI‘NEE‘
(SECONDARY BUILDINGS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3| %
\\\\\\ SEMI FlRE-RESISTIVE‘
2; 16,432 PUPILS
6.9 00 COMBUSTIBLE
47.4 0/0 \ ‘
\ . // FlRE-RESISTIVE
26,”5 PUPILS '4'? 0/0

 

MIXED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 PER CENT OF COMBINED SCHOOLS
NOT PROVIDING CERTAIN FACILITIES

Kentucky Avg. 25 States

11,293,744 pupils
(56% Science room 49%
54%» Shop 47%
33(1) Library 4396
43% Home Ee. 40%
71%; Music 70%
60% Bus. Education 54%
7 3 9?, Gymnasium 41 ‘/o
7 9 % Auditorium 34 %
28% Cafeteria 35%
93% Medical Suite 85%
94 71. ' Art 94 %

25 State average from Office of Education’s “First Progress Report”

 

 

 

  

 

PER CENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS

 

 

 

:35 NOT PROVIDING CERTAIN FACILITIES

25 States ‘ Kentucky Avg'.h25 Stat-es ‘ 1
_/ . ~ 11,293,144 puplls
{4% pupllS 27% Science room 21%
L970 26% Shop 14% 3
L77; 9% Library 20% ,
L370 9% Home Ea. 14% j
9% 367; Music 39% .
:OC/O 30% Bus. Education 26% j
)470 46 9'4» Gymnasium 20 % ‘ r
L170 37/ Auditorium 26% ‘
I4?) 27% Cafeteria 37% 1
:2; 81% Medical Suite 70% r ‘
40/: (34% Art 69%

R t” 25 State average from Office Of Education’s “First Progress Report” f
SS repor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

NEW CONSTRUCTION NEEDED

Table 18 is based on estimates made by the districts in Part Ill
of the Survey forms. Needs have been listed in three categories.
1. To relieve overcrowding
2. To house increases
3. To replace obsolete building's

lt will be seen that 40] units with 7,511. elassrooms to house
224,532 pupils are needed. The cost of these needs is estimated at
$157,844,31600.

Comparative data from the 25 states in the First Progress
Report was not available. The pupils affected in these three eate—
gories represent 42% of the March, 1051. enrollment and 82.9% of
the 1951. census

2410

 Ln Part 111

egories.

s to house
timated at

3 Progress
:hree eate—
l 82.9% of

Elementary

Secondary
Combined

Elementary

Seeondary
Combined

Elementary

Secondary
Combined

Totals

To relieve overcrowding

 

 

Units Rooms Pupils
60 510 16,543
31 264 7,555
59 364 11,030

To house increases

44 353 11,758
19 311. 8,595
29 131 3,518
To replace obsolete buildings
85 3,591 107,737
28 41417 11,596
46 1,540 46,200
401 7,511 224,532

 

NEW CONSTRUCTION NEEDED

Cost

.4; 7,844,150
5,274,500
5,940,000

7,811,360
505,000
042,095

7,,
2,

72,766,467
11,769,648
36,891,096

$157,844,316

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

DEFICITS

Table 19 shows the number of districts by number grouping,
the deficits by groups, and the deficit per pupil in each group.
Louisville is not shown because her building indebtedness is handled
through the city’s sinking fund,

The word “deficit” as used here conforms with the term as used
in the forms from the Office of Education. It means “the difference
between the estimated needs and the district’s ability to meet those
needs based on present listing of property and the 2% bonding
limit.”

lt is interesting to note that while the debt per pupil in districts
0-499 is approximately one-third of the average debt per pupil in
districts of the first five groups, the deficit per pupil in the districts
of 0-499 is 22.8% greater than the average of all districts under
4,000 pupils.

2.4-2

  

DEFICITS

 

 

 

grouping, ,
31 group. (Needs less ability to pay) i
s handled 1
; Districts Pupils Deficits Per Pupil
m as used 37 117899 $ 3:923:193 $329.71
Efferemm 46 34,147 8,075,875 236,50
met the“, 72 112,727 33,588,010 297.95 ;
bondinw 37 66,757 19,603,036 293.64 1 5
7 21 70,277 17,238,823 245.29 ; ;,
8 35,422 12,455,098 351.62
1 (“3mm 10 100,541 19,885,504 197.78 I
' Pupil 1“ 3 26,517 10,807,750 407.57 ‘
’I (“Shim 2 34,356 17,427,371 507.26

3ts under .
Total defimts $143,004,660

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

 1,.. n:V¢

 

 

,v. 1.1...vwxlpr?rtl§xtvf . ..¢.r»11. V .t _ . 7...... 1.112.... 4.6.. $55.3.
.... , .,. ,,. ,. V. . . .._V...‘