A 111 DM O^Dba

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

a report of the U.S. Team visit to France

from November 13 to 23, 1977

NBSIR 78i521

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Washington, D.C. 20234

00-"! 100

u56

78-1521

C.2

March, 1979

HaHenaJ Bwsau of Stamlards JUL 1 G t978

, NBSIR 781521 Cj.

u

\ c

a report of the U.S. Team visit to France

from November 13 fo 23, 1977

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Prepared in cooperation with

School Construction Branch

U.S. Office of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20202

March 1979

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps , Secretary

Jordan Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The National Engineering Laboratory of

the National Bureau of Standards would

like to express its sincere appreciation

to R. Rossi, Director, Centre Scientifique

et Technique du Batiment , and his staff,

James L. Haecker, Editor, and S. Porter

Driscoll, Program Coordinator, for their

efforts in producing this document.
Preface

In November 1969, the French

Minister for Industrial and Scientific Development and the United States

Science Advisor to the President met

to continue their discussion, begun

two months earlier in Paris, on ways

to expand scientific and technical

cooperation between the two countries. Subsequently, a number of

French and American officials met to

discuss specific cooperative projects

in a variety of fields, including

building technology, urban development, environmental pollution, marine

sciences, meteorology, transportation

and medicine.

By June 1970, the National

Bureau of Standards and the Centre

Scientifique et Technique du Batiment

had effectively begun a cooperative

program in building technology. The

purpose of this program was to in- crease jointly the French and United

States capability to:

1. develop building sciences and

technology to meet the needs of

increased housing and building

requirements

,

2. seek answers to significant

building technology problems of

interest to both countries, and

3. reduce costly and wasteful duplication, in both time and re- sources, of parallel national

efforts in building research by

sharing the results of such

research efforts.

This collaboration has provided

opportunities for representatives of

both nations to exchange ideas,

skills, information and techniques

in attacking problems of particular

mutual interest. These opportunities have included the exchange of

selected literature, with translations of main papers and publications; the exchange of long-term

interns working in the organization

of the other country on subjects

requiring special facilities; work

by one organization for the benefit

of the other not as well equipped,

either in staff or in equipment;

joint work by both organizations

following a plan of mutual problemsolving; and the exchange of missions

of experts from one country to the

other to study special work. It is

precisely this exchange of missions

of experts, to study specific work,

that produced the report which follows .

In March 1975, a team of French

architects , engineers and educators

visited in the United States to ob- serve the U.S. process of education,

its organization and the implementation of school building programs

necessary to support educational

needs. Their observations have been

reported in a document which has been

printed in both English and French

and will serve as an interesting com- panion to the report of the U.S.

team visit. Together, these documents will provide the reader with a comparison of systems used to provide buildings for educational re- quirements, showing some distinct

similarities, some diametrical dissimilarities and some interesting

emerging trends and concerns of both

nations

.

1
The Mission

Introduction

The purpose of the trip was to

observe and study French educational

facility design, construction and

utilization. The selection of the

United States team and the mission

were arranged by James L. Haecker,

then coordinator of International

Programs, Institute for Applied

Technology (IAT), National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) . The visit was in

conformance with the agreement between the Institute for Applied

Technology at NBS (IAT-NBS) and the

Centre Scientifique et Technique du

Batiment (CSTB)

.

The U.S. team report will deal

with elements of the educational program, particularly as it relates to

the building program. It has been

written by the individual team members , each providing his or her own interpretation of situations and con- ditions noted from the point of view

of his or her own expertise and background. The fact that some observations, or aspects, may be duplicated by team members serves to em- phasize the importance of those

aspects

.

The schools visited were those

mutually selected by the Ministry of

Education and CSTB. All were of

recent vintage and typified the sev- eral systems of construction. Each

school possessed individual design

qualities that set it apart from

others visited by the team. These

differences are significant and arise

largely from unique combinations —

site, building orientation, designer

and builder — since the educational

programs for the schools of a given

size and grade level serving the same function are almost identical.

Because the buildings visited were

relatively new, the programs were being phased in on an annual basis.

Consequently, the team did not have

an opportunity to observe older

types of building design and some

of the more established programs,

particularly at the secondary level.

2
Trip Itinerary

Background

IAT-NBS and CSTB established a series of joint activities aimed at

informing each other of the best

state-of-the-art knowledge and practice related to several building

types. Schools were selected as a building type important to both countries, and a 16-person French team

lead by M.J.C. Parriaud studied U.S.

Schools in 1975. This counterpart

study tour by the U.S. team completes

a current series based on building

type studies.

Locations Visited : Paris, Toulouse,

Marseilles, Valence, Grenoble,

Geneva, November 13-23, 1977,

specific visitations are noted on page 5.

Purpose of Trip : To observe and

study French educational facilities

as a member of the U.S. Team

created in conformance with CBTCSTB agreement.

Team Composition

:

Mr. Samuel Bates, A1A, Architect,

Dallas, Texas.

Dr. William W. Chase, Team Leader

and Chief Construction Branch,

U.S. Office of Education, HEW.

Mr. Porter Driscoll, AIA, Manager,

DAC/TAP, Center for Building

Technology, NBS

.

Professor Jonathan King, HAIA,

Director Architectural Research

Laboratory, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Mrs. Margie Thompson, Principal

Terraset Elementary School,

Reston, Virginia.

3
Itinerary:

The study tour began with

a team briefing given in Paris Monday

afternoon, November 14, by Mile.

Angela Ghivasky, Secretary to M.

Rossi, Director, CSTB, and by

M. Jean Rousseau, Charge de

Mission, CSTB. During the

meeting Mile. Ghivasky identified

the schools to be visited and the

meetings to be attended in various

locations. She also explained in

detail the transport, lodging and

financial arrangements that had

been made for the team’s benefits

and identified the French specialists who would be traveling with the

team; M. Rousseau, CSTB; Mile.

Sauvage, Ministhre of Education and

Mile. Bensilum, interpreter.

At each of the major centers - Toulouse, Marseilles, etc. - the

team was met bya group of departmental and regional representatives

of the Ministry of Education, and

architects, contractors and local

officials who presented briefings

during which questions were sought

and answered. Thereafter at each of

the schools,

a more detailed briefing

was presented by the principal and

staff. After this briefing, the

team studied the various aspects of

the educational and building program,

the design and construction process

and the building in use.

This proved to be an effective

information transfer technique, and

CSTB and the Ministry of Education

are to be congratulated for the flawless execution of the following com- plex and fast-paced itinerary: 4
Monday, November 14, 1977 Paris

Briefing by CSTB

Paris

Tuesday, November 15, 1977

College de Saint-Orens

Paris-Toulouse

Wednesday, November 16, 1977

Dental School, University P.

Sabatier

Lycee Henry de Toulouse-Lautrec

Toulouse-Marseilles

Thursday, November 17, 1977

College d'Istres (Istres)

College de Bollene (Bollene)

Marseilles-Valence

Friday, November 18, 1977

College de Crest (Crest)

College du Clos d'or (Grenoble)

Centre Integre de Ville Neuve

(Grenoble)

L'ecole Trimaire de Pontcharra

(Pontcharra)

Valence-Grenoble

Saturday, November 19, 1977

College de Champs Fleuri

L'ecole Maternelle de Rumilly

(Rumilly)

Grenoble-Geneva-Paris

Sunday, November 20, 1977

CSTB Briefing-School Building

Design and Construction Process

Paris

Monday, November 21, 1977

Station du Chatelet

Centre Pompidou, Work session with

Ministry of Education Staff

Paris

Tuesday, November 22, 1977

U.S. Embassy, Conference with Rene

Rossi, Director, CSTB, and,

William Salmon, Scientific and

Technical Counselor

Paris
Education and Educational

Organization

Elementary and Secondary

Education in France

On July 11, 1975, the Senate

and National Assembly adopted a bill

on the reform of the French educational system that had been presented

by Rene Haby, Minister of Education.

The main lines of this reform are:

1. to offer general education to

all children in both intellectual and practical areas;

2. to adapt the school to the child:

to enable a child to pass to a higher grade on the basis of his

maturity rather than age;

3. to bring schools into more direct

contact with the contemporary

world: to over-haul curriculums,

introduce new subjects and to

develop a new approach to school

life

.

Pre-elementary Education

France is the only country that

requires its nursery school and

kindergarten teachers to attain the same level of education as its elementary school teachers.

Nursery school and kindergarten

education is optional and available

to children ages two to six. Of

course, nursery schools have no formal syllabus, the aim being to help

children learn how to live in society. Activities are varied, but

principally include educative games

and self-expression through movement, singing, stories and art.

A child may then enter elementary school as early as age five,

depending on his level of maturity

which is determined by his teacher,

his parents, a doctor, and a psychologist .

6
7
Secondary Education - First Cycle

A child’s entry into secondary

schools, occurring usually between

ages 10 and 13, again depends on his

level of ability and maturity.

Although the first cycle is

intended to reinforce and extend a child’s primary learning, the school

programs do include rich and varied

introductions to such studies as physics and foreign languages.

The first cycle is divided into

two parts:

a) Le Cycle d 'Observation

Equal emphasis is placed upon

disciplines to encourage the child's

full range of abilities in intellectual and artistic activities as well

as sports and manual skills: French,

a second language, math, economics,

humanities, physics, natural sciences, manual and technical training,

art and music, physical education

and sports. Extra classes are provided for children who have fallen

behind, and accelerated classes for

students who do well.

b) Le Cycle de'Oreintation

In addition to general subjects

listed above, a student may choose

among the following:

A modern second language, or Latin or Greek; or prevocational training courses,

including training periods

in a technical high school,

a firm, etc.

A second level certificate is

awarded upon completion of this

cycle. The certificate is based on

the student's school record and,

where applicable, the results of

facultative examination, the B.E.P.C.

(Brevet d 'Etudes du Premier Cycle).

After completing the first

cycle, the student has three options:

a) to further his education in a lycee d ' enseignement general et

technologique where he may

prepare for the Baccalaureat

examination or the Brevet de

Technicien

.

b) to further his education in a lycee d ' enseignement prof essionnel

where he may study in preparation

for the CEP (1 year) , the CAP or BEP (2 years) , ordinary technical

certificates

.

c) or, at age 16, (the minimum

school-leaving age) to begin an apprenticeship in a training

center or firm.

8
Secondary Education - Second

Cycle - The "Lycee''

There are two kinds of "lycees":

Lycee d'Enseignement Professionnel (LEP)

These are two-year schools preparing pupils for a trade (the CAP

certificate) or several related

trades (BEP certificate). All diplomas are awarded on the basis of tests

given throughout the year. Students

failing to maintain a satisfactory

level are given attendance certificates .

Lycee d'Enseignement General or Technologique

The main role of these schools,

which are classical, modern or technical lycees, is to provide general

instruction in French civilization

(classes des 2eme et lere) and prepare students for advanced studies,

for specialized training, or for

active life (Classes Terminale).

French, philosophy, math, science, technology, economics, social

studies, plus one modern language

compose the curriculum of the first

two years of the lycee. In addition,

students have a large range of electives: ancient and modern languages,

arts, sports, technology, and advanced courses in math, engineering,

economics and business management.

A certificate is awarded at the end

of the class du lere. The certificate is based on test grades during

the year and a final exam, and is of

particular value to those students

leaving school at this age.

In the "Classe Terminale," or the final year of the "lycee," the

student chooses his own program which

prepares him either for higher education or for his future occupation.

The compulsory Baccalaureat

examination culminates a balanced

secondary education.

The Baccalaureat

The examination consists of

a series of written and oral

tests. These include the

level of general education

acquired in the programs

of the first two years of

the "lycee," and the

specialized knowledge

acquired in the Classe

Terminale

.

9
School Program

If one can conclude that the

school facility is an outgrowth of

the type of curriculum to be taught

in the school, the schools visited

lead one to at least the following

assumptions about school programs:

1. Most teaching observed by the

team assumes that the student

learns best through direct instruction, using the auditory

modality.

2. Little "hands-on" learning was

demonstrated except in the Arts.

3. Extending learning via the Media

Center is not yet a reality,

since the absence of books,

tapes, visual learning materials

was acute.

Exceptions to these assumptions

exist in the nursery schools and vo- cational schools, both of which evidenced many learning materials and

students participating actively in

their own learning.

One notable effort seems to be

emerging in the control of class size.

The schools visited had very small

sized classrooms and were properly

called lecture classrooms. The addition of media centers for extended

learning opportunities seems to be an effort toward "opening" the methodology of teaching to a more inclusive

notion that the student can indeed

learn much on his own.

The direction of curriculum is

centralized in Paris, and all students are exposed throughout the

state to the same curricula. It seems clear that this concept is not

fully practiced by either the local

school directors or the Ministry;

however, both groups tend to favor

the centralization of control of the

curriculum. Where leadership at the

local school was strong, the Ministry

appeared to approve curriculum

practices that were divergent.

If we use the terra curriculum

to include all the child's experiences during the school day, mention

must be made of the child's play

experiences and lunch experiences.

The children are notably selfdirected, and the absence of extreme

supervision was refreshing. It

would appear that liability for

student accident is not yet a serious factor in French public

schools; moreover, the apparent

assumption that children are noisy

in play, should relax at lunch, and

largely tend to themselves during

their mid-day period is again a difference between American and

French schools that is noteworthy.

Perhaps the definition is less one

of pedagogical theory than it is of

pragmatic job description of the

teachers by the French teacher's

union. Perhaps the teachers do not

consider supervision of children

part of instructional duties.

The Arts seem to play an integral part in the curriculum; however,

the absence of children's work in

the corridors or classrooms was indeed startling. Only in the Media

Centers of the schools visited was

there any evidence of the really

quite superior work done by the

10
Adults Students

children in the visual and graphic

arts. The exception to this was in

the nursery schools where the children's work was carefully and com- pletely displayed.

Generally speaking, the curricula offered the French student in

the schools visited by the team

appear to offer more real-life

experiences for students. It appears that the subject disciplines

are for the most part taught in

isolation at the local level, while

the Ministry of Education recognized

the desirability of an interdisciplinary approach as outlined by

the reforms of 1975.

The common use by the community

of school facilities such as swimming

pools is economically viable since

funding can come from the Ministry

of Recreation. In three schools

visited by the team, the covered

pools, complete with exercise rooms adjacent to the schools, were in use

by students and hours were posted

for adult use. Libraries and drama

facilities were also shared. Perhaps

this is the most noteworthy community

involvement in the public schools

visited. The Ministry was candid in

their response to team questioning

regarding community participation in

the development of schooling in

France

.

11
Community Involvement in

Education Process

The subject of community involvement in public education is of

particular interest when assessed in

the French school system. At first

examination it would appear that

because of the centralization of all

planning activities by the Ministry

of Education in Paris, little, if

any, local involvement exists in

either program planning or development of educational facilities.

However, through visitation in the

schools and interviews with both

local citizenry and Ministry personnel, there is a process for community

involvement in the public educational

system. Because the process is

somewhat obscure and difficult, it seems fair to say that the rather

generalized feeling of non- involvement prevails among the

citizenry. Basically the citizen

wishing to have an impact on his

local public educational program has

two avenues: 1) the power of the

vote and 2) the power of the purse.

The vote seems to be the most effective of the two

.

If a local community wishes to

effect change in its educational

program or facilities, it works

through the mayor and municipal

council. They, in turn, work through

the regional Prefect and the Academy

Inspector at the Ministry of Education

whose major responsibility is long

range planning of public school

facilities. The local community

must provide five-year demographic

data to support need. If data

supports need, the new school will

be included in the next construction

program. It is obvious that the

Ministry cannot approve all justified

proposals; therefore, the politics

of need and money obtain. It is

interesting that 85% of the dollars

allocated for construction of

secondary schools comes from the

state. About 20-30% of the con- struction costs for primary and

elementary schools, which are the

the property of cities or groups

of villages, are also subsidized

by the state. However, only 3%

of the total state budget goes

to school construction. It takes

approximately two or three years

to decide where a school will be

built and to acquire financing.

It takes about one year to con- struct the building, thus making

the five-year, demography somewhat

questionable. In schools visited

by the team it seemed apparent that

the schools were built to house

more students than were in attendance; this makes the per-pupil

cost for construction and program

somewhat difficult to ascertain.

In one school the team visited

- a Nursery School "de l'Avenue

Andre" in Rumilly, France - the

aspect of community involvement in

the development of the type of

school program to be offered to

children, as well as the kind of

structure in which to house the

program, was clearly understood.

With the involvement of the mayor

and town council in paying building

costs and in working closely with

the nursery school's county inspector

on the program desired by the com- munity, an end result was a building

unusually sensitive to its environment and its function in the development of pre-school children. The

community, as represented by its

mayor and parents, was clearly proud

of its school, its program and the

12
resulting educational process. At

Saint-Orens the principal made a particular reference to his desire

for more parent involvement.

While generalizing on community

involvement either in French or American schools is risky since observation is limited to the schools

visited by the team, it would appear

that real user involvement in the

development of plans for a school

building or in curriculum changes

is in a state of evolvement. It

would not be appropriate to comment

on the effectiveness of the reforms

introduced by the Senate and National

Assembly in 1975 since they have not

had sufficient implementation time

to allow the French citizen a greater

level of participation in decisionmaking in public education. Further,

it remains to be seen if the type of

societal structure and political

ideology of France will find such

citizen involvement in education

feasible or attainable.

Nursery School at Rumilly

Nursery School at Rumilly 13
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Growth of School Building in France

School Building Process

The post World War II baby

boom, the shift from a 50 percent

rural, 50 percent urban population

to a 85 percent urban population,

and the change of required schooling

from 12 years of age to sixteen

years of age created a tremendous

demand that has been substantially

met - 80 percent of all schools in

France were built since World War

II.

To meet this strong and continuing demand, a centrally controlled

decision-making and building acquisition process was developed by the

Ministry of Education. In the early

post-war years, primary emphasis was placed on providing essentials, and

later, as the resource/need balance

permitted, refinements were added

and desirable elements incorporated.

However, strict central controls are still exercised over quantity,

quality and costs.

France is composed of 22

economic regions headed by a government employee called the Prefect

of the Region. The Ministry of

Education annually distributes a subsidy ("gift of credit") to each

Regional Prefect. The Prefect,

assisted by the Regional Assemblies,

decides on the division of this

"total amount of credits among

costs for new construction, maintenance, safety work, etc." The

Prefect, not the Ministry, decides

on the number of new constructions.

In order to reduce the uncer- tainties of costs, product quality

and delivery times, extensive emphasis has been placed upon industrialized building. Firms and their

associated architects are invited

by the Ministry of Education to

demonstrate through the detailed

design of a typical school that

their firm can meet Ministry of

Education requirements. Since

there are a number of larger

industrialized builders successfully

active in housing and other types

of design and construction, it is

understandable that the Ministry

of Education should want to make

use of the strengths of this system..

The school building projects designated for construction are matched

to the selected industrialized

builder.

14
Villard-Benoit at Poncharra (Grenoble)

The city chooses the architect who will construct a primary

school, for example, the School at

Pontcharra. When the school is

a college or a lycee , the architects

are chosen by the Ministry. In this

instance, there are two architects

who are responsible for the construction. The adaptation architect who

is chosen by the Ministry makes the

studies for adapting the industrialized process to the terrain and to

the future site of the establishment.

The operational architect, named by

the Ministry but chosen by the municipal council, is charged with following the construction progress at the

site. This division of tasks is

theoretical; it can be modified by

the two architects, as well as their

honorariums, through an understanding

between themselves. The selected

architects design within the limitations of the selected system, and the

schools are built very quickly. For

example,

a highly individual school

—

"Villard Benoit" at Pontcharra near Grenoble — was begun in April, 1976

and was completed on September 15,

1976, using the Costamagna System.

15
The Process of Designing and

Building Schools in France

The way schools and particularly

secondary colleges are planned,

designed, and built in France was of

substantial interest to the team

from the United States. The process

differs dramatically from the way it

is done in the United States, and it

is difficult to compare the two without getting into issues of pedagogical

theory, the direction of the building

industry, the place (and value) of

the architect as an independent con- sultant, and localism versus

nationalism.

The first and possibly most

important difference in the management of French education compared

to that in the United States is the

centralization of decision-making

in Paris at the Ministry of Education.

This applies to curriculum, staffing, educational techniques and

theories, and of course to the

design and construction of buildings.

Because of centralized decisionmaking regarding all these factors,

it is far easier to utilize the

building of schools as a force to

encourage the industrialization of

the building industry in France (and

to do so is national policy) . The

fact that the Ministry of Education

in Paris can settle such matters as the size of schools in terms of

numbers of pupils and space per

pupil, and can establish structural

modules (such as the all-pervasive

7.2M.), both reduces the number of

variables for the building system

producer and also increases his

potential market to include schools

anywhere in France. This makes it

far easier technically to design a building system for French schools

(and less risky economically) than

it is in the United States. The

result is a group of thirty-two

industrialized building systems,

each of which can apparently meet

the technical, spacial, and safety

requirements for French schools.

This brings a level of industrialized

efficiency to French school building

that is only present occasionally in

the U.S.

The general process by which

school buildings are designed and

built in the United States puts much

of the economic, pedagogical and

building design decision-making in

the hands of the local school board,

its administrative and teaching

16
Villard-Benoit

Villard-Benoit

staff, its architectural consultant,

and other participating local citizens. In contrast the French model

places most of the decision-making

in Paris. At its best, such a system is more efficient than the

United States model, but it can also

be less sensitive to local needs and

aspirations. It may have a tendency

to inhibit local initiatives, both

architecturally and educationally.

In terms of building process, the

French system insures a greater

uniformity with fewer errors and

weaknesses than appear in United

States school building. The French

context is, however, considerably

more limited in terms of cultural

and climatological variety than is

the United States.

The role of the architect is

also quite different in the French

process. In general he lacks the

opportunity to have a strong input

into the development of the program

for the school, since most of the

program decisions are determined by

the Ministry of Education. He does,

however, have an opportunity to work

closely with the major contractors

in developing the industrialized

building systems utilized for the

school building program. This is an opportunity many American architects would like to have available

to them. The typical United States

architect's clear role in the school

building process, to serve as the

representative of the client/ schoolboard, doesn't exist in France. The

architect is employed by a contract17
Vi Hard-Benoit

ing group to design the industrialized building system, or by the

Ministry of Education to utilize the

system in the design of a particular

school. The architect is not paid

by the Ministry unless he is designated to be the adaptation or operation architect. Frequently the

architect who designed the system

does the primary design for a school,

with a local architect adapting and

coordinating the project and doing

what we in the United States would

call construction administration.

As indicated above, there are thirty-two industrialized building

systems (each of which belongs to a contracting firm) which have been

pre-qualif ied for school use by the

Ministry of Education on the basis

of detailed architectural and engineering plans and some physical

testing.

18
The industrialized processes

are put into operation either by a society of national stature or by a smaller group which may have 30-40

members or by some means which is

divided throughout the territory

based on a limited geographical

sphere of action. These groups of

enterprises have a common study

bureau, generally in Paris, and only

the operation of the process is

given to local enterprises.

Cost, ability to meet the

educational and spacial requirements

for schools, safety, thermal insulation, acoustic separation between

spaces, and the resistance of wall

surfaces to the wear and tear schools

receive in all countries are the

principal issues considered by the

Ministry in pre-qualifying the

systems

.

Having selected a group of

systems on a national basis, almost

all secondary school projects are assigned to one of the thirty-two

prequalified contractors, and often

to the architect who collaborated

with the contractor in the development of the system. The program for

architectural spaces is issued by

the Ministry of Education in Paris;

it is quite specific, and the project can proceed very efficiently.

After drafts are selected on their technical quality and their

functional expectations, the Ministry

asks the enterprises which presented

the selected drafts to make cost proposals. The Ministry proposes a price

per meter squared which should not be

exceeded and the enterprises then

propose their reduction. The size

of the orders given by the Ministry

depends on the correspondence between

quality and price.

While the general level of the

schools the team visited was quite

high, it appeared that more attention

might well be given to the specifications of the performance of the

system in relation to acoustics - specifically to the reduction of

reverberent sound - and to improving

the quality and quantity of lighting.

The normal French heating and ventilating systems (i.e., perimeter

radiation and operable windows) is

less than would be acceptable most

places in the United States, but in

view of the more temperate climate

in France and the increasing cost of

fuel, this may well be a very sensible long-term solution.

However, there is obviously

some interest in the development of

more sophisticated heatingventilating-cooling systems. The

College Henri - Boudon which the

team visited in Bollene had a forced-ventilation system with

separate duct networks for heating

and cooling. The system was developed by the Centre Scientifique et

Technique du Batiment (CSTB) to

provide higher comfort levels while

being both economical to build and

to operate. The system utilizes an evaporative cooler. It was encour- aging to find the French national

building research agency, CSTB,

working to solve a problem in the area of educational facilities.

19
Henri-Boudon a Bollene

20
Henri-Boudon a Bollene

Henri-Boudon a Bollene
Reflections on the Schools Visited

The test of any process is its

ability to solve problems. In this

respect, the school buildings visited reflected well the ability of the

French school building process to

deal imaginatively with real problems. The ability of the Ministry

of Education to work cooperatively

with other Ministries was particularly impressive. The results

included sports facilities at several schools which served both the

schools and the other members of the

community. The Team was impressed

with two pre-engineered (Poly Vinyl

Chloride) domed indoor-outdoor pools.

The Educational and Cultural

Center - Les Heures-Claires at Istres

- thirty to forty kilometers northeast of Marseilles was an extremely

effective demonstration of the value

of fifteen governmental agencies

working together. The educational

effectiveness of this school could

not help but benefit from the pres- ence on one campus of the College

for 1200 students' (a middle school in

United States terminology) along with

the public library, theatrical facilities, health facilities, sports

facilities (including the pool and

sailing facilities) , vocational

retraining facilities for adults, and

facilities for other community purposes.

Les Heure Claires

Educational/Cultural Center at Istres

22
Les Heure Claires, Istres

Les Heure Claires, Istres

23
The integration of the school

and the new housing at La Ville

Neuve, a housing project for 10,000

persons in Grenoble, was also impressive. So the French process gets

high marks for its ability to bring

governmental agencies together to get

greater value from its school facili^

ties by integrating them with other

appropriate activities.

In dealing with new issues, the

system is quite adaptable as well.

The Dental School, a part of the

Toulouse complex and the first one constructed under state control,

demonstrated great care in regard

to fitting the building and the

newly developed program. The close

integration of the Dental School,

and the Dental Clinic with its

separate management, also gave

evidence of the ability of various

agencies to work together in the

public interest.

The vocational school for food

preparation workers in Grenoble - College d ' Enseignement Technique du

Clos d'Or - had extremely fine

vocational facilities for its very

specialized purposes, again reflecting the ability to program and build

a highly unusual facility.

U.E.R. d ' Odontologie

Dental School at Toulouse

24
College d ' Enseignment

de Clos d'or

College d ' Enseignment

de Clos d'or

25
Implications of the French Process

of Building Schools

The French political system, the

French view of education, and the

French approach to building schools

all differ radically from those in

the United States. The result is a system more centralized, more uniform

and hence democratic. But it

involves far less participatory

decision-making at the local level.

In this respect, it is less democratic. The school building system,

above all the secondary schools,

supports the Federal governmental

policy of strengthening the hand of

industrialized systems procedures.

The process produces safe and appropriate schools, but possibly provides

less opportunities for architectural

excellence than the United States

system. The French system also

limits (indeed almost eliminates) the

possibilities of building schools

that are inappropriate or uneconomic.

The benefits and problems of centralism and uniformity go together.

In the process of developing the

building systems themselves, there

appears to be heavy emphasis on the

7.2M module. The results are systems

that ordinarily appear to be able to

deal with most of the problems en- countered. Some systems, however, seem to have rather makeshift or awkward solutions to achieving longer

spans. There also appeared to be

rather more space dedicated to corridors than would be acceptable to an economy-minded school board in the

United States.

One factor relating to process,

which our team noted repeatedly, was

that the schools designed around

libraries (or instructional materials

centers) - biblioteques/mediateques - didn't have the literary or audiovisual materials needed to make them

vital instructional areas at the time

when the school was first occupied.

However, many of the building

systems the team saw were impressive

in their well thought through detailing and adaptability to a variety of

plans and site conditions. And the

schools visited in general were

excellent solutions to France's

school building needs.

26
School Building Standards

French school buildings are constructed in accordance with general building codes and standards,

including those regulating building

strength, fire resistance, means of

egress, plumbing and electrical

distribution. In addition, the

schools must reach given quality and

quantity levels established by the

Ministry unlike some American

states where minimum standards are developed for school building con- struction which is to be funded in

part by the state. And wherein local

municipalities are urged to exceed

these standards whenever possible

with the understanding that the local

community pays for the extra costs,

the prevailing French opinion is that

the Ministry of Education must establish an optimum level which every

community must observe. They felt

strongly that "a rich community

shouldn't have richer educational

facilities .

The Ministry of Education spacial requirements, as well as those

for equipment and materials, are largely derived from post-occupancy

experience and observations. While

this works well in the evolutionary

development of traditional classrooms, especially those of a special

nature such as physics or chemistry

laboratories it is somewhat less

successful in the rapid introduction

of new types of spaces, such as media

centers where there is little or no domestic experience.

The Ministry of Education has a small group of architects and engi- neers but has no research teams or laboratories. To solve problems such

as the development of requirements

for new types of spaces and equipment

the Ministry staff is utilized and

assistance is sought from other

ministries. CSTB is relied upon to

solve technical problems related to

school buildings. Performance re- quirements are established where

possible and acoustical, fire and

thermal requirements are expressed in

these terms. Security and hygiene

requirements are expressed only

partially in performance terms.

Where performance levels cannot be

rationally established or tests

cannot be devised to measure achieved

levels of performance, then requirements are stated in prescriptive

standard terms.

27
School Building Features

1 . Location and Site Plan

The schools are generally located on relatively generous sites

sufficient to provide room for initial construction and expansion of

the school, ancillary physical education and community-use buildings,

parking and playgrounds. In addition, a residence is often provided

for the principal on the same site.

On-site vehicular and pedestrian

traffic is well segregated. Conventional playgrounds are provided

and are designed for staff control of

student activities. In addition to

the conventional playground, there

exists in many cases an enclosed

interior court designed for less

strenuous activities such as concerts

and theatrical productions. Close

attention is paid to siting buildings

in order to minimize negative site

features such as noise and wind.

2. Building Plan

Since the secondary school

building is most often situated on

a generous site, it generally is of one or two story construction. The

French ideal is not to create large

schools of 1500 to 2000 pupils, but

rather to keep the size around 900.

In low density areas schools are often combined to reach this size

and become "polyvalent" (serving

more than one standard educational

age group, e.g., nursery and primary).

When this is done, facilities such

as cafeterias, kitchens, assembly

halls, and physical education buildings are shared by the two groups.

The arrangement of spaces in the

schools is not surprising but is

generally well handled. (There are exceptions to this, however, when a relatively inflexible structural

system or other design problem

causes a poor fit between form and

function.) Various elements are grouped logically according to function, and the buildings are easy

to "learn" - there is no confusion

as to where things are.

The tradition of individual

classrooms for instruction by the

teacher persists, but there is a new

emphasis on responsive student involvement. Large and small multiuse spaces and media centers are widely used and are also shared by

the two age groups. School building

construction money comes from one

fund and school equipment comes out

of another appropriation generally

provided over several years. For

that reason, the science laboratories

and media centers are often illequipped by any standards, and suffer

particularly by U.S. standards.

Circulation spaces including stairs

are generous and particular attention

is paid to fire safety and fire

safety design; e.g. signage, lighting, and protected means of egress.

3.

Structure

Reinforced concrete, cast-inplace, and several varieties of

precast concrete dominated the con- struction scene. All twelve schools

visited made extensive use of con- crete and only two of the twelve use

any significant quantity of other

materials. The Educational and

Cultural Center at Istres utilizes a steel rationalized-traditional form

of construction, i.e., rolled steel

28
Cultural Center at Istres

\\

Nursery School at Rumilly

shapes and steel deck, stabilized

with exposed diagonal bracing both

vertically and horizontally; and the

nursery school at Rumilly uses laminated wood beams and conventional

wood roof framing to achieve a domestic scale and character. Cast-insitu concrete is of good, but not

outstanding, quality. Pre-cast

Nursery School at Rumilly

concrete is of excellent quality and

in many cases is given no "cosmetic"

finish. The heat loss through con- crete floor systems over unheated or exterior spaces appeared to be a problem and was diminished somewhat

through the insertion of rigid wood

fiber panels into the coffers or channels of the floor system.

29
4. Building Envelope

Exterior walls are most often

of concrete and are produced in a wide variety of forms, textures and

colors. Large concrete exterior wall

panels and deep concrete beltcourses

between the window heads and roof

line are often heavily textured to

add interest and to visually unify

disparate elements. In some cases

the large panels contain windows

formed into the panel themselves,

whereas in other cases the window is

joined in a conventional manner to

adjacent vertical wall panels and

roof or floor panels. The windows

are mostly horizontal sliding or of

the "Italian" pattern, which allows

the head of the window to tip in

toward the room about six inches to

provide ventilation and also to swing

into the room about a vertical axis

for cleaning. This latter style

window is extensively used and is

available both in aluminum and wood.

Almost universally windows are shielded from vandalism, excessive

heat exchange and glare by means of

wood, metal or plastic slats which

roll up into a box placed above the

window head. In many cases this

exterior device can be tipped out at

the bottom to provide a solar shade

for the window while still providing

natural ventilation.

The majority of the school roofs

are generally flat (having a slope

less than 1/2" per foot), but there

are two examples of sloped roofs - one in concrete (Pontcharra) and one

in wood (Rumilly) to give regional

character, but both were preelementary schools, having broader

local conception and financing than

secondary schools. Extensive use

is made of sky lights in circulation

areas, places of assembly and workshops, and "Pyrodomes" are used for

venting in case of fire. The com- bination of extensive fenestration

and sky lights provides great quantities of natural light into the building. In most cases the head of the

window comes very close to, if not

flush with, the ceiling and provides

natural light deep into the room. This, coupled with reflections from

relatively light colored interior

finishes, often provides all the

illumination necessary.

Skylights

30
5. Finishes and Equipment

Exterior and interior finishes

are generally good and of types that

require little maintenance. Heavyduty floors in circulation spaces are either ceramic tile, terrazzo, or flexible composition floor tile

approximately one-half meter on a side. In places of assembly, media

centers and libraries extensive use

is made of carpeting. Partitions are often of concrete or masonry units

exposed or plastered or gypsum board

with a sprayed on finish. Color is a prominent feature of the schools

particularly in the assembly and

circulation areas. Sometimes the

strong, raw colors are very successful, but often they provide a dissonance that detracts from some of

the better interiors. Acoustical

correction is provided on ceilings of

special classrooms and is required in

places of assembly. Acoustical

separation between spaces appears to

be very good but the acoustical

character of all spaces seems to be

quite "live."

Equipment in many cases is

reduced almost to a minimum. A

single chalkboard, approximately 2 meters wide by 1 meter tall, with a chalk tray but otherwise with unbound

edges, often serves as the >ole common display element in a classroom. This chalkboard is often lighted by means of a separately switched

pendant fixture suspended approximately one meter in front of the

top edge of the board. Science

equipment and other specialized forms

of equipment are of French design and

manufacture and are characteristically clean-lined and economical in

their use of materials. Seating and

furniture is often of an American

design manufactured under franchise

in France.

6. Mechanical Systems

Heating systems in the schools

consist of electric resistance heating, fossil-fueled hot water and steam

systems, or forced hot air systems.

During the heating season artificial

ventilation is provided at the rate

of three to four air changes per

hour, or not less than 15 cubic meters

per pupil per hour. There was no evidence of air conditioning in any

of the schools, but this lack is

causing a certain amount of discomfort particularly in the southern

regions. CSTB research is being

conducted on alternative methods of

providing thermal comfort during hot

weather and a presentation was made

to the U.S. team at C.E.S. 996 HenriBoudon (Bollene) describing a low-cost

"air-conditioning" process. In lieu

of mechanical refrigeration, they

utilize intense mechanical ventilation providing 20 volumes of air per

hour, taking advantage of the thermal

inertia of the building with supplemental air cooling by means of water

evaporation. In both summer and

winter the inlet velocity varies from

2 to 5 meters per second, with the

range of 3 to 4 meters per second

being most usual. This translates

into approximately 60 feet per minute

velocity at the outlet, which they

feel does not trouble the room occupants. The tempered air is pumped

into each classroom high on the wall

opposite the window wall and is drawn

31
out through acoustically trapped

openings in bottom panels of the

doors. There is a perceptible breeze

at the seats adjacent to the window

wall, but it is not uncomfortable or annoying

.

Lighting and electrical distribution is most often handled quite

simply and directly in school building construction. Artificial lighting appears to be designed to supplement natural illumination.

Fluorescent fixtures are used in

classrooms and incandescent elsewhere. Incandescent fixtures are modest and unobtrusive except where

they are used to accent design elements, then the fixture and the light

it produces is playing a major role.

In the case of ceilings of precast

concrete, the electrical conductor,

while insulated, is often run unprotected in the joint between two

adjacent slabs and emerges only to

enter a surface-mounted junction box

to which the light fixture is secured. Overhead electrical distribution for typewriters, sewing machines and other appliances is common with the final connection by means of

drop cords into which the appliance

is plugged. The overhead electrical

distribution system consists of Romex

supported on a pendant mounted perforated metal channel. No sleeves

were provided to avoid chafing of

electrical insulation on the rough

edges of the steel channel.

32
The Construction of School

Facilities in France

It became apparent that to grasp

the ways and means of French school

construction specifically, and the

educational process in general, it

would be necessary to understand

differences which exist between the

French system of school acquisition

and acquisition in the United States.

As mentioned earlier, notable of

these differences, and the one which

possibly most affects secondary school

construction in France as compared to

that in the United States, is the

complete centralization of all

educational and educational facility

planning within the Ministry of

Education located in Paris.

The major result of this centralized decision-making, insofar as school construction techniques are

involved, is the development of

highly industrialized building

systems. Prequalified by the Ministry, the systems are individually

developed and owned by contracting

firms. An architect is often called

in to collaborate with either the

Ministry of Education or the con- struction contractor in the development and utilization of a system. (A

similar such system in the U.S.A.

would be a modified design/build

approach to building construction.)

This use of prequalified industrialized building systems, each of which

has been developed through complete

architectural and engineering planning phases, with continuing input

from professional research and

material testing programs, has

allowed the French Building Industry,

following World War II, to greatly

increase productivity, cost effectiveness, quality control and overall

construction excellence.

The team was impressed with the

examples of industrialized school

building systems visited. The itinerary allowed for inspection of two

major types of systems: precast con- crete and concrete frame; steel and

steel frame; to which can be added

wood, wood frame and masonry for preelementary schools. In virtually

every instance it was noted that

great attention and care were given

to detail at both design and construction phases. Most ways and methods

of detailing, handling and constructing the roofing, ceiling, interior

partitions, cabinetry, millwork,

finishes, sitework, etc, vary little

from practices in the United States.

All of these items, under the French

manner, are easily coordinated and

collated as a system within a system

to become part of parts of any one of

the above mentioned 32 industrialized

building systems.

It was apparent that many benefits are accruing to French school

construction as a result of an advanced research effort. Single

membrane and upside-down roofing

systems are successful examples.

Other benefits include a retractable

and adjustable exterior window blind

and shutter system, as well as the

work in heating, ventilating and airconditioning systems at the College

Henri-Boudon in Bollene.

In isolated instances there is a possible need to give additional

research and investigation to class- room lighting levels, a broader

building energy conservation program,

sound and noise level control at

student occupied spaces and professional selection of color schemes at

the interior and exterior of some school buildings.

33
Several important questions were

raised by the team members from time

to time concerning the school con- struction contracting firms and the

various ways they are effected as participants in the French construction program. The subjects are:

1 . Responsibilities Assigned to the Contractor

The responsibilities of the

French construction contractor are legally defined and determined on the

basis of two articles of the French

Civil Code, sometimes referred to as the Napoleonic Code.

In simplified terms, the first

relevant article of the code states

that, should a building be proved

defective in any way or manner due to errors or omissions in design and/or

construction, within a period of ten

years after completion of construction, the architects, contractors and

any other individuals or firms bound

to the building owner by a construction contract shall be responsible.

The second article states that

the ten year period of responsibility, or guarantee period, referenced

above, applies only to the structural, roofing and weatherproofing

aspects of the building, or those

parts of the building normally called

rough work. The parts of the building

referred to as smaller work are guaranteed for a period of two years

only. Included are joinery, cabinetwork, partitions, plumbing, heating

and electrical installations.

In the event litigation arises

from a violation, or an alleged

violation of the contract, the case can be resolved in one of two kinds

of courts.

France has a double order of

jurisdictions: civil jurisdictions

and administrative jurisdictions.

Civil jurisdictions resolve litigation between particulars and administrative jurisdictions handle litigation where administration in the

large sense is implied. Administrative jurisdiction is constituted by

the administrative tribunal, judges

of the first order, and by the council

of the state.

If the client or owner of a building is the State or a public

agency, th.e applicable court is the

Conseil D'Etat. This court does not

judge as to the "Letter" of the

contract, but as to the "Intentions"

of the concerned parties. This is

brought about because the contractor

is considered first to be in the

State's service, since before he is a contractor he is a citizen. The

contractor is ordinarily considered

to be more competent and experienced

than the officials representing the

State, with whom he must deal.

Consequently, when an unforeseen

event occurs during the construction

process, the contractor must take all

measures required to protect the

work, even if the required measures

appear to be against his immediate

interest. At a later time he may ask

the State to repay him. The Conseil

D'Etat is known for being extremely

slow, and in some instances the

contractor must wait several years

before the court releases its decision. The State does eventually pay,

but the contractor must be prepared

to wait.

When the client or building

owner is a private entity, contract

disputes will be judged by the second

kind of court, or the Court of Com34
merce. In this court, only the

"Letter" of the contract is binding

upon the parties. Consequently, only

that which is written is binding

unless the contractor has acted in

contradiction with a public regulation.

2. The Contractor's Legal Liabilities

The contractor, as a citizen of

France, is bound by the general

duties and obligations resulting from

the laws which apply to any citizen.

This set of laws is called the Civil

Liability and is quite comprehensive.

As far as his activity as a contractor is concerned, his specific

responsibility, and therefore

liability, is governed by the articles referred to under Responsibilities of the Contractor above.

3. Labor and Labor Concerns

Over all of France the Labor

Code rules and regulates the relations between the employer and his

employees

.

In addition, for each profession

and recognized business endeavor a collective agreement or Convention

Collective has been discussed and

signed between the employers asso- ciation on one hand and the employees

union on the other, both being representative and represented at the

National level. The association

representing French contractors and

builders is aptly named Convention

Collective de la Federation du

Batiment

.

This collective agreement, at

the National level, establishes the

bases of the labor contract regarding

holidays, retirement, welfare, seniority and other fringe benefits. An

additional agreement, involving the same parties at the regional level,

determines the minimum salary or wage

rate guaranteed for each work or labor classification.

In essence, the labor code which

incorporates the laws and rules and

the professional collective agreement, are binding upon the contractor

or employer as well as his worker

personnel

.

4.

Contractor Insurance Consideration

It is compulsory in France for

employers to have in effect, at all

times, two kinds of insurance social

security and automobile (company and

individual) . The implementation and

enforcement of the insurance laws,

rules and regulations fall under both

civil and criminal court jurisdictions .

The social security insurance

program, of Federal (or National)

Government origination, is designed

to protect the individual against the

risks of illness, accident and death,

and provides for retirement benefits.

It is compulsory for all French

workers

.

It is the prerogative of the

individual employer to decide whether

or not he desires additional types of

insurance such as fire, casualty,

liability, etc.

It is normal practice for French

construction firms, on their own prerogative, to carry adequate liability insurance coverage and protection when concerned with the two

types of guarantee imposed by the two

35
articles of the Civil Code referenced

under Responsibilities Assigned to

the Contractor. This type of insur- ance is usually acquired only for

larger construction projects (including schools) and not the smaller

projects such as individual family

housing units.

5. Construction Practices and Approaches

The usual approach for a French

construction firm seeking work on a specific project is to submit a bid

or cost proposal in answer to an inquiry or request for proposal (RFP)

issued by the project owner or his

representative. The owner will have

acquired the services of an architect

and commissioned him to design the

project prior to release of the RFP.

The architect will have completed

drawings through the architectural

document stage (design development in

the United States) and, in addition,

will have prepared a tender file. As

a general rule, the French architects

execute design development drawings

at a scale of 2 cm/m but will release

neither a bill of quantities nor working drawings. Therefore, the

contractor must arrive at the bill of

quantities, the appropriate structural system calculations and a complete project cost analysis.

Prior to the start of, or during

construction, the client will request

lump sum prices to be revised in

accordance with the construction

contract escalation clause indexes

published by the French Government.

Many French construction com- panies prefer to avoid the type of

contractual arrangement described for

the following reasons:

o When the contractor is unfamiliar

with the architect and his work,

it is difficult to evaluate the

type of building he designs.

o Each construction contractor

uses particular construction equipment in his own particular way to

gain the experience and capability to better and more efficiently

accomplish the work for which he

contracts

.

o When the architect doles out the

orders by lots on a siz able

project, the contractor is unable,

at a given time, to determine the

future scope of the over-all

project. As a result, large parts

of the construction cost are not

under his control and, in all

probability, will not meet his

expectations

.

For these reasons, and more, many

contractors with backlogs of experience prefer to work on projects in a turn-key manner in order to, as the

general contractor, act and execute

for all the required trades. In so doing the contracting firm management

can state to the client or owner the

total scope of the project work, and

also ascertain it for themselves.

Many contractors prefer to quote

a project cost when the owner originates a building program and an accompanying fiscal or cost objective.

The contractor can then offer a building for which his firm has

executed the drawings. Much the same kind of arrangement exists in the

United States under a Design/Bui

Process or System.

36
This procurement method has been

used for nearly two decades by the

Ministry of Education, the Ministry

of Health, the post office and other

French public authorities. The

procedure involves inviting tenders

through a contest or competition. In an instance of this sort, the con- tractor will collaborate with ar- chitects who are fully aware of the

firm’s construction methods, having

worked with that particular contracting firm over a long period of time

on a large number of projects.

Several French contractors have

enjoyed success on the international

scene using the above described

design/build approach. The team

quickly became aware of a number of

large and small differences, addressed above, which exist between the

French way of school acquisition and

construction and that of the United

States, i.e., centralization, use of

the everpresent 7.2M module, industrialized building systems.

The team also became aware of

the tremendous progress which has

taken place in the French building

industry since World War II. Much of

this progress is attributable to the same factors found to be fundamental

to the success of a major part of the

French building industry - the school

building program. The practical

application of the centralized

decision-making process, competent and

capable design/build teams and

industrialized building systems

(particularly those using reinforced

concrete and precast concrete) made

it possible for the French people to

literally rebuild, in a limited time, an entire national school system

largely destroyed by the ravages of war and time.

After accommodating the rather

large difference of centralization

versus decentralization, the American

team found no other marked differences in most of the construction

methods and approaches used in either

of the school systems. The builders

in each country have to suffer

through much the same kind of governmental red tape, labor problems,

insurance and liability woes and

tight construction time schedules.

The French school builders demonstrate a remarkable ability to over- come these kinds of difficulties, and

yet complete a well designed and

constructed school facility in approximately half the time required in

the United States and at a considerably lower cost.

Many construction and design

techniques considered to have been

peculiar to the school building

industry in the United States have

had long term use in French school

construction. Design/build, value

engineering, life cycle costing, con- struction management, energy con- servative construction and design,

and solar and wind energy design are but a few.

37
Conclusions and Recommendations

In this report the respective

team reactions and opinions represent

those of the individuals themselves

in accord with their own personal

interests, background and experience.

There were many instances in which

the team recognized very basic

differences between the French and

American systems in the planning,

design and utilization of school

facilities and the reasons for them.

On the other hand, the similarities

in overall attitudes and philosophies

were quite striking.

At nearly every one of the

school sites visited by the team, the

planners, designers and builders of

each were willing and open in their

discussion of all aspects of local

and State relationships in the total

design, support and operation of the

school system. It was interesting

and refreshing to note the eagerness

with which the French team pursued

the kinds of problems both countries

are facing and possible ways and

means of solving them. Among them are the rapidly rising costs of

.

construction and operation, coupled

with decreasing enrollments in the

schools. Shortages of fossil fuels

and the consequent high costs of

energy have been and will continue to

be a mutual problem to be solved.

Concerns for life and fire safety

standards in school buildings, and

also designs for physically and

mentally handicapped were given much

attention in the team discussions.

There is also a growing awareness of

the community-school philosophy and

the planning and design necessary for

it

.

The purposes for the exchange of

visits of educators and architect/

engineer/designers and builders of

educational facilities in the two

countries are, in the opinion of the

American team, well founded and

provide the potential for improved

systems of education and building

research in both countries.
NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

NBSIR 78- 1521

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

FRENCH SCHOOLS - a report of the U.S. Team visit to France

from November 13 to 23, 1977

5. Publication Date March 1979

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

P. Driscoll, Coordinator .

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

U.S. Department of Education

School Construction Branch

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20202

13. Type of Report & Period

Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

By June 1970, the National Bureau of Standards and the Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment had effectively begin a cooperative program in building technology.

The purpose of this program was to increase jointly the French and United States

capability to develop building sciences and technology; seek answers to significant

building problems; and reduce costly and wasteful duplication of parallel national

efforts. This collaboration has provided opportunities for representatives of both

nations to exchange ideas, skills, information and techniques in attacking problems

of particular mutual interest. These opportunities have included the exchange of

selected literature, with translations of main papers and publications; the

exchange of long-term interns working in the organization of the other country on subjects requiring special facilities; work by one organization for the benefit of the

other not as well equipped, either in staff or in equipment; and the exchange of

missions of experts from one country to the other to study special work. It is

precisely this exchange of missions of experts, to study specific work, that produced

the report which follows.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons) Building technology; France/NBS cooperative program;

French schools

18. AVAILABILITY fXl Unlimited

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. C13

1 X 1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

39

22. Price

$4.50

USrCOMM-DC 29042- P 74

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1979-281-067/91
-