New Britain herald., 1923-06-01
rnE scmooLs nIserssIoN.

WITHOUT committing lishlfi " hrtinth
"a take time to think over a matter ni
importance. Whether any decision II
might have reached would have more
than q moral effect" or not, II Is well
that no such decision was put on rec
ord To have forced q decision. based
upon the slight information avail
able, in favor Of or against new
building commission" or 'one-storS
school houses would have heen fol-
IT, To have adopted or rejected the
report OF tho school survey committee
would have been unfair either 10 the
committee or 10 those opposed 10 the
report. To have received and placed
it on hlc would have been perfectly
proper.
As II was indicated in these COL
rmns yesterday would bc the case two
matters stood out at the meeting. first
the new building commission promo
stion." and secondly the "one-story
plan" for schools. In regard to the
first proposition the point was raised.
OF course. that no matter how efficient
a school committee might be, its
members were not practical builders,
and practical builders should have
charge of building. 1t was not em-
phasized, OH tho other hand. that a
commission of practical builders"
would not, probably, he practical edu-
Gators. Certainly practical men. prac
tical builders, are needed to work
with the practical educators when 1t
comes to building school house.
Many architects are practical build
ers, moreover, in many cases. 'prac-
tical builder" has supervised the con-
struction of our school houses. The
expense of school construction is a
growing menace, being a part of the
greatest burden men have today--the
rising cost of taxes. But there is one
situation tina cannot be allowed--the
placing in the hands of practical
builders only the construction OF
school houses. The obvious the SEN
sible, the wise position to take is to
. requisite for membership on the
school board of at least some of its
lar 10 II n nf
cal builders as an advisory board to
the school committee. The former
would be preferable, working for
greater harmony and cooperation.
The matter OF the one-story school
building brings up a decided conflict
Of opinion. It was said that the
Nathan Hale school cost S525,000;
the Washington school, about the
same size, cost S320, OO0--and that the
latter school, If built according to the
one story plan, would have cost but
$4,000 Immediately the cold cal
culator jumps to the side of the one
story plan. He sees lantern slides,
showing ne-looking sChools-on the
screen lot of beautiful doors,
especially,
Then. if he has ears TO hear. this
sudden convert to the onc-story school
plan hears of the disss tisfaction eX-
pressed in Cleveland, for instance.
with the 31-room, one-story school
He hears there is considerable diff
Guilty heating it; he hears that whore
It is set IN a populous neighborhood
it looks like factory, with its huge
smok stack and squaut appearance.
over a one story school not far from
New Britain He hears that a whole
lot of time is wasted by pupils going |
from one class room to another. or
from one part of the building, through !
long corridors TO another part. lie !
hears that IT is impossible to have any !
grounds about the school house built |
on the one-story plan unless 1t is To-
Gated in the suburbs Of the city. He !
hears that the practical difficulties or |
maintainence. extra land and heating
make IN for the less expensive con-
struction, to say nothing of the APP
pearance.
Then. back again with the advo-
Gates Of the one-story school house,
he hears that only 1G per cent. more
land is needed and a school can be
built for half the cost Of the two
story house. He hesitates again. He
wants time to think il over. Wen. he
has it-aad that, certainly, is good.
one vital question comes TO the
mind of ne impartial observer. Why
is this strenuous effort being made TO
put over this one-story plan in New
Britain and elsewhere? Any Now
Britain man may be actuated 10y a
desire TO save money for tho taxpsy-
ers But how about the out-oc-town
p>rson or persons who came here,
/