Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1950-12-17

terviewed in The Stars survey Of
Arlington school building costs
agreed the county could have
saved some money.
They were cautious, however,
about estimating how much. Most
This Is the Third of Series of Articles
About Arlington School Costs.
of them thought the sum would
be small" in relation to the mil
lions which have been spent.
But A-lington's approach to the
building problem is different from
many places. The School Board
never made any bones about the
fact it tried to put up better"
schools. One firm of architects
explained the difference in this
way:
When Prince Georges and
other counties order plans drawn
for school they tell us they need
building for a given number of
pupils. They say they want the
building to contain certain facili-
ties. The Board of Education
states that it has approximately
so much money for the job.
"Then, it is our responsibility
as architects to draft plans which
meet the order.
Almost the reverse is true in
Arlington. The School Board
there says:
1--WE need a building for
certain number of pupils. Here
are our requirements. How much
will be Job cost us?'"
The architects don't say Airing
ton is wrong in setting its sights
high. Some clearly think the
course wise. -'
Difficulty in Planning.
One architect said his drafts
men had economical so much in
the plans for other communities
that they had difficulty drawing
plans for Arlington to the School
Boards more elaborate require
ments.
Mrs. Edmund D. Campbell,
chairman of the Arlington Board,
contends the public gave man
date in 1948 for the policy her
group has pursued in building
schools.
She does not see why voters
refused on November 7 to author
ize another SIS million in school
construction bonds.
I'VE set out deliberately to build
good schools-the best we could"
said Mrs. Campbell. And that is
just what we've done.
1.-TWO years ago we asked bond
issue for $4,766,000. At the same
time we submitted a detailed pro-
gram Of the schools we proposed
to build with this money.
''The public knew what the pro-
gram was. The people approved
the bonds. And we built the
schools, as we said we would,
within the limits of the bond
issue"
Costs Called Excessive.
Nevertheless, the criticism has
come. In an exhaustive analysis
of costs. a committee Of the Ar
lington Ridge Civic Association
described expenditures as excess
sive. 1t made comparisons with
school costs in some neighboring
communities. What it reported
did not make Arlington look good.
A fair comparison is difficult, at
best. Exact comparisons are i'm
possible. This is due in part to
the fact that no two buildings are
alike and nc two are constructed
under precisely the same condi-
tons. Material prices fuctuate.
Labor wages vary between the
times contracts are let. Building
costs are affected by topography.
There are ether factors.
Sometimes, costs are compared
by the rate of expenditure per
cubic foot. Sometimes they are
figured by the square foot. Occa-
sionally. effort. is made to de-
termine the outlay per classroom.
But the technical experts say all
these methods have objections.
Cost Per Pupil Cited.
One fairly widely accepted
standard is the cost per pupil.
Under this method, it is de-
termined how much is spent at a
given building for the rated
capacity" of the school. This
means the iceal number of pupils
to be enrolled. 1t does not refer
to the number that would be
crowded into the building under
emergency conditions.
In using any yardstick it is de-
sirable to compare schools which
contain approximately similar IA
cilities and are constructed under
similar market conditions.
This is not easy in Arlington.
For, as Mrs. Campbell said. the
county is building better schools
than most. The structures are
more nearly complete. Some con-
tain auditoriumS or have more
space or larger and better
equipped cafeterias.
That is not to say Arlington
has the only fine new schools in