HUSSARDER, A. F. Evolution of a High School Plan. American School Board Journal, 66:54-56, 133, January, 1923. KINGSLEY, C. D. Organization and Administration of Senior High Schools As Affecting Buildings. In School Architecture, by J. J. Donovan et al, pp. 126– 156. Macmillan, 1921. MILLIGAN, J. M. The Proper Method of Figuring Building Costs and Capacities. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Association of Public School Business Officials, pp. 67-68. 1924. PACKER, P. C. Housing of High School Programs. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1924. Standardization of School Building Measurement and Cubical Contents. American School Board Journal 53:33, November, 1916. STRAYER, G. D., COFFMAN, L. D. AND PROSSER, C. A. St. Paul, Minn., Survey. City Council of St. Paul, 1917. PROBLEM 100 UNIT COSTS OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS Problem: The need for making comparisons in the costs of new school buildings arises in many school systems. The difficulties involved in securing accurate comparisons in any particular situation should be evident to the superintendent of schools. What are the factors which cause inaccuracies in such comparisons? The following quotations from educational literature show the difficulties arising out of this problem: As differences between school buildings increase, the difficulty becomes rapidly greater. The reason for this is that there is no single satisfactory unit of comparison. COST PER PUPIL Perhaps the commonest unit for comparing the schoolhouse costs is the cost per pupil. Thus, if one schoolhouse costs $60,000 and another costs $80,000, and each building has accommodations for 400 pupils, it is clear that the cost per pupil in the first building is $150, and in the second building, $200. It may well be, however, that the additional cost in the more expensive building is caused by the improved accommodations which that building furnishes. Both buildings may have 10 classrooms, but the more expensive building may have in addition an auditorium, a gymnasium, a boy's playroom, a girls' playroom and a nurse's room. The illustration makes it clear that the cost per pupil is not a satisfactory unit of comparison, unless it be further explained by specifying the accommodations provided for each pupil. COST PER CLASSROOM The classroom is often taken as a unit of comparison, but as such it has all the shortcomings mentioned in the case of the unit based on the cost per pupil. In addition, the classrooms may be small, accommodating only about 35 pupils each, or they may be large and accommodate about 50 pupils each. Moreover, some cities accommodate more pupils than do others in classrooms of the same dimensions. COST PER CUBIC FOOT Among school architects the cost per cubic foot is often taken as the unit for comparative cost data. In general the number of cubic feet in a school building is arrived at by multiplying the ground area of the building by the distance from the lowest part of the basement floor to the average height of the roof. There are, however, many variations in the method of computing the number of cubic feet, and there is no uniform practice among school architects in different cities. For this reason the cost per cubic foot is not an entirely satisfactory unit, except when used for buildings of similar construction and computed by precisely uniform methods.1 COST PER SQUARE FOOT OF FLOOR AREA This method in estimating the cost of a proposed building is not sufficiently accurate, as it does not involve the cubic contents of the building. For instance, the school building under consideration may have approximately the same floor area as another and at the same time may have greater story heights and a high sloping roof. This difference would immediately upset and make void any careful calculation of the proposed or comparative cost. Unit cost per square foot is of very little help, and should be only obtained for the additional information it affords in tabulating the different unit costs of the structure.2 COSTS IN TERMS OF AMOUNTS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF MATERIALS AND LABOR Rule of thumb estimating may result in one of two evils if the guesses are not correct: underbidding with the resultant loss of capital, or overbidding with a consequent loss of contract. To obviate either of these requires a true knowledge of costs attainable only through the employment of an accounting system which will permit one to secure accurate information. Such a system will insure the following advantages: (1) It forms a basis for estimating, since it provides data on the different types of work. (2) Through comparisons and comparative statements, over-runs are detected and efficient methods are revealed. 1 Report of a Study of Certain Phases of the Public School System of Boston, Mass. Document No. 87, 1916. City of Boston. Donovan, J. J. Cost of School Buildings, p. 76. In School Architecture. Macmillan, 1921. (3) Data from such a system can be utilized in legal controrelations of labor and materials entering into construction require (4) Change of plans are rendered more intelligent when supplemented by knowledge of costs. Cost accounting and estimating being so closely allied, it is essential that costs be stated in terms of groups represented by physical quantities in order that unit rates be established. The varying relations of labor and materials entering into construction require subdivision of the various groups into various subclassifications, the minuteness of which is governed by local conditions and requirements. Form I is an analysis of types of work entering into school construction and the classification can be used for: (1) Summarizing quantity surveys. (2) Estimating costs of school construction. (3) Basis of a standard accounting system for schoolhouse construction. (4) Reporting job progress and distributed construction costs. Assignment 1. Using as illustrations two school buildings accessible to members of the class group, indicate the inaccuracies which would occur if comparative costs on any single basis above were used for any important conclusions. 2. Discuss the possibility of converting costs on various school buildings into an index of comparability. 3. When and how could the Gamble form be used by the school superintendent? 4. When building costs exceed an appropriation, what procedure should be followed in making the adjustment, providing no additional funds are in sight. How does this factor of "unit cost" enter into the solution? 5. Is it advisable for a Board of Education to select an architect because of his "sales” argument that he will keep the unit cost below a certain level? Illustrate generously. 6. What attitude would you desire to have your Board of Education assume toward this whole problem of unit costs? Gamble, G. C. Trends of School Building Costs and School Construction Accounting. Teachers College, Columbia University. 1922. Unpublished. |