170 942

TITLE

1115111(7'110N

EBPOR ND

PUB DAI7NOTE

EDES PRICEDEECPTPTORS

OCCUR INT 13

EA 0 11 725

French S obocls. A Pepert cf the U.S. TeamFraTtce from November 13 tc 23, 1977_IJationdl Bureau of Standards (DOC) , Washington, D,C.Cen-ter for Building Technology. ; Office of EdUCation(DREW) Washin gton D.C..Echeol ConstructionBranch.NBS IR-18-1521Mar 79442p..; Photos may not re frcduce clearly

MFO 1t-PCO2 Plus Postage.Building Design; commun ity involvement; ConstructionPrograms; *E ducat Iona l 'ac ilities; *EducationalPrograms; Element ary secondary Education; FacilityGuidelines; *Facility PIN,nning; Preschool

ucationIDENTIFIERS *France

ABSTRACTThis document is a repoxt of a U.S. team visit to

France. in 1977 to observe and study Tre nch educational facilitydesign, construction, and utilization. The report is written by theindividual team members and deals with elements of the educationalprogram, particularly as it related to the building program. Some ofthe topics include educational organization, community involvementthe education process, and the designirg a rd building of schools inFr& nce. The report concludes that the exchange of visits ofeducators, designers, an d builders between the two countries pro _.(1_the potential for improved systems o f education and Wildingresearch. (Author (LD)

**********Reproducti

***** ******

*** ** *** **supplied by EDRS a tee the bes

from the original document.********** ** ***********

at can be made***IX* ** * *

NBSIR 781521

1-1a report of the U.S. Team visit to France

Laj from November 13 to 23,1977

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN,STING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTA TED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

Center for Building TechnologyNational Engineering LaboratoryNational Bureau of StandardsWashington, D.C. 20234

Prepared in cooperation with

School Construction BranchU.S. Office of Education400 Maryland Avenue, SWWashington, D.C. 20202

March 1979

U.S. DEPARTM 11T OF CpMERCE, Juanita M. Keeps, Secretary

Jordan Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NI NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The National Engineering Laboratory ofthe National Bureau of Standards wouldlike to express its sincere appreciationto R. Rc si, Director, Centre Scientifiqueet Teclu.que du Batiment,and his staff,dames L. Haecker, Editor, and S. PorterDriscoll, Program Coordinator, for theirefforts in producing this document.

Preface

In November 1969, the FrenchMinister for Industrial and Scientif-ic Development and the United StatesScience Advisor to the President metto continue their discussion, beguntwo months earlier in Paris, on waysto expand scientific and technicalcooperation between the two coun-tries. Subsequently, a number ofFrench and American officials met todiscuss specific cooperative projectsin a variety of fields, includingbuilding technology, urban develop-ment, environmental pollution, marinesciences, meteorology, transportationand medicine.

By June 1970, the NationalBureau of Standards and the CentreScientifique et Technique du Bdtimenthad effectively begun a cooperativeprogram in building technology. Thepurpose of this program was to in-crease jointly the French and UnitedStates capability to

1. develop building sciences andtechnology to meet the needs ofincreased housing and buildingrequirements,

seek answers to significantbuilding technology problems ofinterest to both countries, and

reduce costly and wasteful dupli-cation, in both time and re-sources, of parallel nationalefforts in building research bysharing the results of suchresearch efforts.

This collaboration has provided

opportunities for representatives ofboth nations to exchange ideas,skills, information and techniquesin attacking problems of particular

mutual interest, These opportuni-ties have included the exchange ofselected literature, with transla-tions of main papers and publica-tions; the exchange of long-terminterns working in the organizationof the other country on subjectsrequiring special facilities; workby one organization for the benefitof the other not as well equipped,either in staff or in equipment;joint work by both organizationsfollowing a plan of mutual problem-solving; and the exchange of missionsof experts from one country to theother to study special work. It isprecisely this exchange of missionsof experts, to study specific work,that produced the report which fol-lows.

In March 1975, a team of Frencharchitects, engineers and educatorsvisited in the United States to ob-serve the U.S. process of education,its organization and the implementa-tion of school building programsnecessary to support educationalneeds. Their observations have beenreported in a document which has beenprinted in both English and Frenchand will serve as an interesting com-panion to the report of the U.S.team visit. Together, these docu-ments will provide the reader with acomparison of systems used to pro-vide buildings for educational re-quirements, showing some distinctsimilarities, some diametrical dis-similarities and some interestingemerging trends and concerns of bothnations.

1

The Mission

Introduction

The purpose of the trip was toobserve and study French educationalfacility design, construction andutilization. The selection o! theUnited States ream and the missionwere arranged by James L. Raecker,then coordinator of InternationalPrograms, Institute for Applied

Technology (IAT), National Bureau ofStandards (NBS). The visit was inconformance wirh the agreement be-tween the Institute for AppliedTechnology at NBS (IAT-NBS) and theCentre Scientifique et Technique duBatiment (CSTB).

The U.S. team report will dealwith elements of the educational pro-gram, particularly as it relates tothe building program. It has beenwritten by the individual team mem-bers, each providing his or her owninterpretation of situations and con-ditions noted from the point of viewof his or her on expertise and back-ground. The fact that some obser-vations, or aspects, may be dupli-cated by team members serves to em-phasize the importance of thoseaspects.

The schools visited were thosemutually selected by the Ministry ofEducation and CSTB. All were ofrecent vintage and typified the sev-eral systems of construction. Eachschool possessed individual designqualities that set it apart fromothers visited by the team. Thesedifferences are significant and ariselargely from unique combinations --site, building orientation, designerand builder -- since the educationalprograms for the schools of a givensize and grade level serving thesame function are almost identical.Because the buildings visited wererelatively new, the programs werebeing phased in on an annual basis.Consequently, the team did not havean opportunity to observe oldertypes of building design and someof the more established programs,particularly at the secondary level.

Tr [p fclncrairy

Background

IAT-NBS and CSTB established aseries of joint activities aimed atinforming each other of the beststate-of-the-art knowledge and prac-tice related to several buildingtypes. Schools were selected as abuilding type important to both coun-tries, and a 16-person French teamlead by M.J.C. Parriaud studied U.S.Schools in 1975. This counterpartstudy tour by the U.S. team completesa current series based on buildingtype studies.

Locations Visited: Paris, Toulouse,

Marseilles, Valence, Grenoble,Geneva, November 13-23, 1977,specific visitations are noted onpage 5.

Purpose of Trip: To observe andstudy French educational facilitiesas a member of the U.S. Teamcreated in conformance with CBTGSTB agreement.

Team Cornposition

Mr. Samuel Bates, AlA, Architect,Dallas, Texas.

Dr. William W. Chase, Team Leaderand Chief Construction Branch,U.S Office of Education, HEW.

Mr. Porter Driscoll, NIA, Manager,DAC /TAP, Center for BuildingTechnology, OS.

Professor Jonathan King, HAIA,Director Architectural ResearchLaboratory, University ofMichigan., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Mrs. Margie Thompson, PrincipalTerraset Elementary School,Reston, Virginia.

4

Itinera:

The study tour began with ateam briefing given in Paris Mondayafternoon, November 14, by Mlle.Angela Ghivasky, Secretary to M.Rossi, Director, CSTB, and byM. Jean Rousseau, Charge deMission, CSTB. During themeeting Mlle. Ghivasky identifiedthe schools to be visited and themeetings to be attended in variouslocations. She also explained indetail the transport, lodging andfinancial arrangements that hadbeen made for the team's benefitsand identified the French special-ists who would be traveling with theteam; M. Rousseau, CSTB; Mlle.Sauvage, Ministere of Education andMlle. Bensilum, interpreter.

At each of the major centersToulouse, Marseilles, etc. - theteam was met by a group of depart-mental and regional representativesof the Ministry of Education, andarchitects, contractors and localofficials who presented briefingscuring which questions were soughtand answered. Thereafter at each ofthe schools, a more detailed briefingwas presented by the principal andstaff. After this briefing, theteam studied the various aspects ofthe educational and building program,the design and construction processand the building in use.

This proved to be an effectiveinformation transfer technique, andCSTB and the Ministry of Educationare to be congratulated for the flaw-less execution of the following com-plex and fast-paced itinerary:

M nday, November 14, 1977Briefing by CSTB

Tuesday, November 15, 1977College de Saint-Orens

Wednesday, November 16, 1977Dental School, University P.

SabatierLyc4e Henry de Toulouse-Lautrec

Thursday, November 17, 1977College d'Istres (Istres)College de Bollene (Bollene)

Friday, November 18, 1977College de Crest (Crest)CollZge du Clos d'or (Grenoble)Centre Intggre: de Ville Neuve

(Grenoble)

1.1'6cole Trimaire=de P-n cha(Pontcharra)

Saturday, November 19, 1977College de Champs FleuriL'6cole Maternelie de Rumilly

(Rumilly)

Sunday, November 20, 1977CSTB Briefing-School Building

Design and Construction Process

Monday, November 21, 1977Station du ChateletCentre Pompidou, Work session with

Ministry of Education Staff

Tuesday, November 22, 1977U.S. Embassy, Conference with Rene-

Rossi, Director, CSTB, and,William Salmon, Scientific andTechnical Counselor

Paris

Paris-Toulouse

Toulouse-Marseilles

Marseilles - Valence

Valence-Grenoble

Grenoble-Geneva-Paris

Paris

Paris

Paris

5

Education and EducationalOrganization

Elementary and SecondaryEducation in France

On July 11, 1975, the Senateand National Assembly adopted a billon the reform of the French educa-tional system that had been presentedby Rene Baby, Minister of Education.The main lines of this reform are:

1. to offer general education toall children in both intellec-tual and practical areas;

2. to adapt the school to the child:to enable a child to pass to ahigher grade on the basis of hismaturity rather than age;

to bring schools into more directcontact with the contemporaryworld: to over-haul curriculums,introduce new subjects and todevelop a new approach to schoollife.

6

Pre-elementary Education

France is the only country thatrequires its ntIrsery school andkindergarten teachers to attain thesame level of education as its ele-mentary school teachers.

Nursery school and kindergarteneducation is optional and availableto children ages two to six. Of

course, nursery schools have no for-mal syllabus, the aim being to helpchildren learn how to live in soci-ety. Activities are varied, butprincipally include educative gamesand self-expression through move-ment, singing, stories and art.

A child may then enter elemen-tary school as early as age five,depending on his level of maturitywhich is determined by his teacher,his parents, a doctor, and a psycho-logist.

Se dery Education - First Cycle

A child's entry into secondaryschools, occurring usually betweenages 10 and 13, again depends on hislevel of ability and maturity.

Although the first cycle isintended to reinforce and extend achild's primary learning, the schoolprograms do include rich and variedintroductions to such studies asphysics and foreign languages.

The first cycle is divided intoparts:

a) Le Cycle d'Obsarv-tion

Equal emphasis is placed upondisciplines to encourage the child'sfall range of abilities in intellectual and artistic activities as wellas sports and manual skills: French,a second Language, math, economics,humanities, physics, natural sciences, manual and technical training,art and music, physical educationand sports. Extra classes are proviled for children who have fallenbehind, and accelerated classes forstudents who do well.

b) Le Cycle de"Oreintation

In addition to general subjectslisted above, a student may chooseamong the following:

A mndrn second language,Latin or Greek; or prevocational training courses,Including training periodsin a technical high school,a firm, etc.

or

8

A second level certificate isawarded upon completion of thiscycle. The certificate is based onthe student's school record and,where applicable, the results offacultative examination, the B.E.P.C.(Brevet d'Etudes du Premier Cycle).

After completing the firstcycle, the student has three options:

a) to further his education in alyce:e d'enseignement general ettechnologique where he mayprepare for the Baccalaur6atexamination or the Brevet deTechnicien.

b) to further his education in alycge d'enseignement professionnelwhere he may study in preparationfor the CEP (1 year), the CAP orBEP (2 years), ordinary technicalcertificates.

or, at age 16, (the minimumschoolleaving age) to begin anapprenticeship in a trainingcenter or firm.

Secondary Education - SecondCycle - Tho "Lycee"

There a_ - two kinds of "lycees":

Lycee d'Enseignernent Professionnel (LEP)

These are two-year schools pre-paring pupils for a trade (the CAPcertificate) or several relatedtrades (BEE' certificate) . All diplo-mas are awarded on the basis of testsgiven throughout the year. Studentsfailing to maintain a satisfactorylevel are given attendance certifi-cates.

Lycee d'Ensel nemen General orTechneiegique

The main role of these schools,which are classical, modern or tech-nical lyeies, is to provide generalInstruction in French civilization(classes des nme et lare) and pre-pare students for advanced studies,for specialized training, or foractive life (Glasses Terminale).

French, philosophy, math, sci-ence, technology, economics, socialstudies, plus one modern languagecompose the curriculum of the firsttwo years of the lyc6e, In addition,students have a large range of elect-ives: ancient and modern languages,arts, sports, technology, and ad-vanced courses in math, engineering,economics and business management.A certificate is awarded at the endof the class du fare. The certifi-cate is based on test grades duringthe year and a final exam, and is ofparticular value to those studentsleaving school at this age.

In the "Classe Terminala orthe final year of the "lyc6e," thestudent chooses his own program whichprepares him either for higher edu-cation or for his future occupation.

The compulsory Baccalaur&texamination culminates a balancedsecondary education.

The Baccalaura

The examination consists ofa series of written and oraltests. These include thelevel of general educationacquired in the programsof the first two years ofthe "lycae," and thespecialized knowledgeacquired in the ClasseTerminale.

9

School Prograro

If one car conclude that theschool facility is an outgrowth ofthe type of curriculum to be taughtin the school, the schools visitedlead one to at least the followingassumptions about school programs

1.. Most teachtng observed by theteam assumes that the studentlearns best through direct in-structiori, -using the auditorymodality--

2. Little "hands-on" 1 a ing wasdemonstrated except in the Arts.

Extending learning -via the MediaCenter is not yet a reality,since the absence of books,tapes , visual learning materialswas acute.

Exceptions to these assu-mptionsexist in the nursery schools and vo-cational schools, both of which evi-denced many learning materials andstudents participating actively intheir own learning.

One notable effort seems to beemerging in the control of class oize.The schools visited had very smalls i zed classrooms and were pro perlycalled lecture classrooms. The addi-tion of media. centers far extendedlearning opportunities seems to be anof fort toward- "opening" the methodo-logy of teaching to a mare inclusivenotion_ that the student can indeedlearn much on his own.

The direction of curri,cuaurncentralized in Varis, and all stu-dents are exposed throughout the

state to the same curricula. Itseems clear that this concept is notfully practiced by either the localsollool directors or the Ministry;however, both groups tend to favorthe centralization of control of thecurriculum. Where leadership at thelocal school was strong, the Ministryappeared to approve curriculumpractices that were divergent.

if we use the term curriculumto include all the child 's e_xperi-enes during the school day, mentionmust be made of the child's playexperiences and lunch experiences.The cl--Aildren are notably self-directed, and the absence of extremesupervision was refreshing. itwould appear that liability forstuder*t accident is not yet aser foils factor in French publicschools; moreover, the apparentassumption that children are noisyin play, should relax at lunch, andlargely tend to themselves duringtheir mid-day period is again adif ference between American andYremch. sc. 3ols that is noteworthy.Yerlas the definition is less oneof pedagogical theory than it is ofpragaa_tic job description of theteachers by the French teacher'sunion. Perhaps the teachers do notcom6iri er supervis ion of childrenpart o f instructional duties .

The Arts seers to play an Inte-gra J. p art in the curt iculum; however ,the ab sence of children's work inthe corridors or classrooms v.zasindeed startling. Only in the MediaCenter s of the schools visited wasthere .any evidence of the reallyquite superior work done by the

Adu It Students

Swimming PoolsTheatersLibraries

ch 1dt-en In the visual and grapha-rt. The except ion 'to this was inthe nursery scLocas where the child-r en r a cork was cexefully and com-plet=ely displayed .

enerally speaking, the curni-cula efferec1 the french student istie actiools visited by the teamappe=ar to of Pert more real-life

e,cperienees for stud ants . it ap-pears that the subject disciplinesawe ler' the most par t taught ini.olatf_on at the loc.el level, whiletie iMitaLiscry- of Eauc-stion recognizedthe cleirability of mn inter-

diseipLinarT approach as outlined bythe ref ores of 19/5,

The common use by the communityof school facilities such as swimmingpools is economically viable sincefunding can come from, the Ministryof Recreation. In three schoolsvisited by the team, the coveredpools, complete with exercise roomsadjacent Lc, the schools, were in useby students and hours were postedfor adult use. Libraries and dramafacilities were also shared. Perhapsthis is the most noteworthy communityinvolvement in the public schoolsvisited. The Ministry was candid intheir response to team questioningregarding community participation inthe development of schooling inFrance.

11

Community Involvement inEducation Process

The subject of community in-volvement in public education is ofparticular interest when assessed inthe French school system. At firstexamination it would appear thatbecause of the centralization of allplanning activities by the Ministryof Education in Paris, little, ifany, local involvement exists ineither program planning or develop-ment of educational facilities.However, through visitation in theschools and interviews with bothlocal citizenry and Ministry person-nel, there is a process for communityinvolvement in the public educationalsystem. Because the process issomewhat obscure and difficult, itseems fair to say that the rathergeneralized feeling of non-involvement prevails among thecitizenry. Basically the citizen

wishing to have an impact on hislocal public educational program hastwo avenues: 1) the power of thevote and 2) the power of the purse.The vote seems to be the most effect-ive of the two.

If a local community wisheseffect change in its educationalprogram or facilities, it worksthrough the mayor and municipalcouncil. They, in turn, work throughthe regional Prefect and the AcademyInspector at the Ministry of Educationwhose major responsibility is longrange planning of public schoolfacilities. The local communitymust provide five-year demographicdata to support need. If datasupports need, the new school willbe included in the next constructionprogram. It is obvious that theMinistry cannot approve all justifiA34

proposals; therefore, the politicsof need and money obtain. It isinteresting that 85% of the dollarsallocated for construction ofsecondary schools comes from thestate. About 20-30% of the con-struction costs for primary andelementary schools, which are thethe property of cities or groupsof villages, are also subsidizedby the state. however, only 3%of the total state budget goesto school construction. It takesapproximately two or three yearsto decide where a school will bebuilt and to acquire financing.It takes about one year to con-struct the building, thus Makingthe five-year demography somewhatquestionable. In schools visitedby the team it seemed apparent thatthe schools were built to housemore students than were in atten-dance; this makes the per-pupilcost for construction and programsomewhat difficult to ascertain.

In one school the team visited- a Nursery School "de l'AvenueAndre in Rumilly, France the

aspect of comnunity involvement inthe development of the type ofschool program to be offered tochildren, as well as the kind ofstructure in which to house theprogram, was clearly understood.With the involvement of the mayorand town council in paying buildingcosts and in working closely withthe nursery school's county inspectoron the program desired by the com-munity, an end result was a buildingunusually sensitive to its environ-ment and its function in the develop-ment of pre-school -children. Thecommunity, as represented by itsmayor and parents, was clearly proudof its school, its program and the

12

resulting educational process.SaintArens the principal made aparticular reference to his desirefor more parent involvement.

While generalizing on communityInvolvement either in French orAmerican schools is risky since cab:Nation is limited to the schoolsvisited by the team, it would appearthat real user involvement in thedevelopment of plans for a schoolbuilding or in curriculum changesis in a state of evolvement. It

would not be appropriate to commenton the effectiveness of the reformsintroduced by the Senate and NationalAssembly in 1975 since they have nothad sufficient implementation timeto allow the French citizen a greaterlevel of participation in decisionasking in public education. Further,it remains to be seen if the type ofsocietal structure and political

S

Nursery School at Rumilly

ideology of France will find suchcitizen involvement in educationfeasible or attainable.

Nursery School at Rumilly

13

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980Growth of _11oo1 Building in France

School Building Process

The post World War Il babyboom, the shift from a 50 percentrural, 50 percent urban populationto a 85 percent urban population,and the change of required schoolingfrom 12 years of age to sixteenyears of age created a tremendousdemand that has been substantiallymet - 80 percent of all schools inFrance were built since World WarI.

To meet this strong and continu-ing demand, a centrally controlleddecision-making and building acquisi-tion process was developed by theMinistry of Education. In the earlypost-war years, primary emphasis wasplaced on providing essentials, andlater, as the resource/need balancepermitted, refinements were addedand desirable elements incorporated.However, strict central controls arestill exercised over quantity,quality and costs.

France is composed of 22economic regions headed by a gov-erment employee called the Prefectof the Region The Ministry ofEducation annually distributes asubsidy ("gift of credit") to each

14

Regional Prefect. The Prefect,assisted by the Regional Assemblies,decides on the division of this"total amount of credits amongcosts for new construction, main-tenance, safety work, etc." ThePrefect, not the Ministry, decideson the number of new constructions.

In order to reduce the once r-tainties of costs, product qualityand delivery times, extensive empha-sis has been placed upon industrial-ized building. Firms and theirassociated architects are invitedby the Ministry of Education todemonstrate through the detaileddesign of a typical school thattheir firm can meet Ministry ofEducation requirements. Sincethere are a number of largerindustrialized builders successfullyactive in housing and other typesof design and construction, it isunderstandable that the Ministryof Education should want to makeuse of the strengths of this system.The school building projects desig-nated for construction are matchedto the selected industrializedbuilder.

Vithrd-Benott At PouchFirr,1 (6renoble)

The city chooses the archi-tect who will construct a primaryschool, for example, the School atPontcharra. When the school is acollege or a lycee, the architectsare chosen by the Ministry. In thisinstance, there are two architectswho are responsible for the construc-tion. The adaptation architect whois chosen by the Ministry makes thestudies for adapting the industrial-ized process to the terrain and tothe future site of the establishment.The operational architect, named bythe Ministry but chosen by the munic-ipal council, is charged with follow-ing the construction progress at thesite. This division of tasks istheoretical; it can be modified bythe two architects, as well as theirhonorariums, through an understandingbetween themselves, The selectedarchitects design within the limita-tions of the selected system, and theschools are built very quickly. Forexample, a highly individual school"Villard Benoit" at Pontcharra nearGrenoble was begun in April, 1976and was completed on September 15,1976, using the Costamagna System.

15

The Process of [Designing andBuilding Schools in France

The way schools and particularlysecondary colleges are planned,designed, and built in France was ofsubstantial interest to the teamfrom the United States. The processdiffers dramatically from the way itis done in the United States, and itis difficult to compare the two with-out getting into issues of pedagogicaltheory, the direction of the buildingindustry, the place (and value) ofthe architect as an independent con-sultant, and localism versusnationalism,

The first and possibly mostimportant difference in the manage-ment of French education comparedto that in the United States is thecentralization of decision-makingin Paris at the Ministry of Education.This applies to curriculum, staff-ing, educational techniques andtheories, and of course to thedesign and construction of buildings.

Because of centralized decision-making regarding all these factors,it is far easier to utilize thebuilding of schools as a force toencourage the industrialization ofthe building industry in France (and

16

to do so is national policy). Thefact that the Ministry of Educationin Paris can settle such matters asthe size of schools in terms ofnumbers of pupils and space perpupil, and can establish structuralmodules (such as the all-pervasive7.2M.), both reduces the number ofvariables for the building systemproducer and also increases hispotential market to include schoolsanywhere in France. This makes itfar easier technically to design abuilding system for French schools(and less risky economically) thanit is in. the United States. Theresult is a. group of thirty-twoindustrialized building systems,each of which can apparently meetthe technical, spacial, and safetyrequirements for French schools.

This brings a level of industrializedefficiency to French school buildingthat is only present occasionally inthe U.S.

The general process by whichschool buildings are designed andbuilt in the United States puts muchof the economic, pedagogical andbuilding design decision-making inthe hands of the local school board,its administrative and teaching

' lard-Benoit

V Ilard- u nit

staff, its architectural consultant,and other participating local citi-zens. In contrast the French modelplaces most of the decision-makingin Paris. At its best, such asystem is tore efficient than theUnited States model, but it can alsobe less sensitive to local needs andaspirations. It may have a tendencyto inhibit local initiatives, botharchitecturally and educationally.In terms of building process, theFrench system insures a greateruniformity with fewer errors andweaknesses than appear in UnitedStates school building. The Frenchcontext is, however, considerablymore limited in terms of culturaland climatological variety than isthe United states.

The role of the architect isalso quite different in the Frenchprocess. In general he lacks theopportunity to have a strong inputinto the development of the programfor the school, since most of theprogram decisions are determined bythe Ministry of Education. He does,however, have an opportunity to workclosely with the major contractorsin developing the industrializedbuilding systems utilized for theschool building program. This isan opportunity many American archi-tects would like to have availableto them. The typical United Statesarchitect's clear role in the schoolbuilding process, to serve as therepresentative of the client/school-board, doesn't exist in France. Thearchitect is employed by a contract-

17

P

Villarci-Benott

ing group to design the industrial-ized building system, or by theMinistry of Education to utilize thesystem in the design of a particularschool. The architect is not paidby the Ministry unless he is desig-nated to be the adaptation or opera-tion architect. Frequently thearchitect who designed the systemdoes the primary design for a school,with a local architect adapting andcoordinating the project and doing

18

what we in the United States wouldcall construction administration.

As indicated above, there arethirty-two industrialized buildingsystems (each of which belongs to acontracting firm) which have beenpre-qualified for school use by theMinistry of Education on the basisof detailed architectural and engi-neering plans and some physicaltesting.

The industrialized processesare put into operation either by asociety of national stature or by asmaller group which may have 30-40members or by some means which isdivided throughout the territorybased on a limited geographicalsphere of action. These groups ofenterprises have a common studybureau, generally in Paris, and onlythe operation of the process isgiven to local enterprises.

Cost, ability to meet theeducational and spacial requirementsfor schools, safety, thermal insula-tion, acoustic separation betweenspaces, and the resistance of wallsurfaces to the wear and tear schools

receive in all countries are theprincipal issues considered by theMinistry in pre-qualifying thesystems.

Having selected a group ofsystems on a national basis, almostall secondary school projects areassigned to one of the thirty-twoprequalified contractors, and oftento the architect who collaboratedwith the contractor in the develop-ment of the system. The program forarchitectural spaces is issued bythe Ministry of Education in Paris;it is quite specific, and the pro-ject can proceed very efficiently.

After drafts are selected ontheir technical quality and theirfunctional expectations, the Ministryasks the enterprises which presentedthe selected drafts to make cost pro-posals. The Ministry proposes a priceper meter squared which should not beexceeded and the enterprises thenpropose their reduction. The sizeof the orders given by the Ministry

depends on the correspondentquality and pace.

between

While the general level of theschools the team visited was quitehigh, it appeared that more attentionmight well be given to the specifi-

cations of the performance of thesystem in relation to acoustics -

specifically to the reduction ofreverberent sound - and to improvingthe quality and quantity of lighting.

The normal French heating and venti-lating systems (i.e., perimeterradiation and operable windows) isless than would be acceptable mostplaces in the United States, but inview of the more temperate climatein France and the increasing cost offuel, this may well be a very sensi-ble long-term solution.

However, there is obviouslysome interest in the development ofmore sophisticated heating-ventilating-cooling systems. TheCollege Henri - Boudon which theteam visited in Bollene had aforced-ventilation system withseparate duet networks for beatingand cooling. The system was devel-oped by the Centre Scientifique etTechnique du Betiment (CSTB) toprovide higher comfort levels whilebeing both economical to build andto operate. The system utilizes anevaporative cooler. It was encour-aging to find the French nationalbuilding research agency, CSTB,working to solve a problem in thearea of educational facilities.

19

Henri- don 8 oll4ne

20

N

=

Refl ctio s on the Schools Visited

The test of any process is itsability tc, solve problems. In thisrespect, the school buildings visit-ed reflected well the ability of theFrench school building process todeal imaginatively with real prob-lems. The ability of the Ministryof Education to work cooperativelywith other ministries was particu-larly impressive. The resultsincluded sports facilities at sever-al schools which served both theschools and the other members of thecommunity. The Team was impressedwith two pre-engineered (Poly VinylChloride) domed indoor-outdoor pools.

Les Heure ClaitesEducational/Cultural Center Istres

22

The Educational and CulturalCenter Les Reures-Claires at Istres- thirty to forty kilometers north-east of Marseilles was an extremelyeffeaive demonstration of the valueof fifteen governmental agenciesworking together. The educationaleffectiveness of this school couldnot help but benefit from the pres-ence on one campus of the Collegefor 1200 students(a middle school inUnited States terminology) along withthe public library, theatrical facil-ities, health facilities, sportsfacilities (including the pool andsailing facilities), vocationalretraining facilities for adults, andfacilities for other community pur-poses.

Les Heure CIaires, Istres

jrtstai.4&.A...-

4 I 14

Les Heur Claires, Istres23

The integration of the schooland the new housing at La VilleNeuve, a housing project for 10,000persons in Grenoble, was also im-pressive. So the French process getshigh marks for its ability to bringgovernmental agencies together to getgreater value from its school facili-ties by integrating them with otherappropriate activities.

In dealing with new issues, thesystem is quite adaptable as well.The Dental School, a part of theToulouse complex and the first oneconstructed under state control,demonstrated great care in regard

U.E.R. d'OdontologieDental School at Toulouse

24

to fitting the building and thenewly developed program. The closeintegration of the Dental School,and the Dental Clinic with itsseparate management, also gaveevidence of the ability of variousagencies to work together in thepublic interest.

The vocational school for foodpreparation workers in Grenoble -College d'Enseignement Technique duClos d'Or - had extremely finevocational facilities for its veryspecialized purposes, again reflect-ing the ability to program and builda highly unusual facility.

College d'Enseignmentde Clos d'or

Collega d'Enseignmeotde Clos d'or

25

Implications of the French Processof Building Schools

The French political system, theFrench view of education, and theFrench approach to building schoolsall differ radically from those inthe United States. The result is asystem more centralized, more uniformand hence democratic. But itinvolves far less participatorydecision - making at the local level.

In this respect, it is less demo-cratic. The school building system,above all the secondary schools,supports the Federal governmentalpolicy of strengthening the hand ofindustrialized systems procedures.The process produces safe and appro-priate schools, but possibly providesless opportunities for architecturalexcellence than the United Statessystem. The French system alsolimits (indeed almost eliminates) thepossibilities of building schoolsthat are inappropriate or uneconomic.The benefits and problems of central-ism and uniformity go together.

In the process of developing thebuilding systems themselves, thereappears to be heavy emphasis on the7.2M module. The results are systemsthat ordinarily appear to be able todeal with most of the problems en-countered. Some-systems, however,seem to have rather makeshift orawkward solutions to achieving longerspans. There also appeared to berather more space dedicated to corri-dors than would be acceptable to aneconomy-minded school board in theUnited States.

26

One factor relating to process,which our team noted repeatedly, wasthat the schools designed aroundlibraries (or instructional materialscenters) - biblioteques/mediateques -

didn't have the literary or audio-visual materials needed to make themvital instructional areas at the timewhen the school was first occupied.

However, many of the buildingsystems the team saw were impressivein their well thought through detail-ing and adaptability to a variety ofplans and site conditions. And theschools visited in general wereexcellent solutions to France'sschool building needs.

School Building Standards

French school buildings areconstructed in accordance with gen-eral building codes and standards,including those regulating buildingstrength, fire resistance, means ofegress, plumbing and electricaldistribution. In addition, theschools must reach given quality andquantity levels established by theMinistry unlike some Americanstates where minimum standards aredeveloped for school building con-struction which is to be funded inpart by the state. And wherein localmunicipalities are urged to exceedthese standards whenever possiblewith the understanding that the localcommunity pays for the extra costs,the prevailing French opinion is thatthe Ministry of Education must estab-lish an optimum level which everycommunity must observe. They feltstrongly that "a rich communityshouldn't have richer educationalfacilities."

The Ministry of Education spa-cial requirements, as well as thosefor equipment and materials, arelargely derived from post-occupancyexperience and observations. Whilethis works well in the evolutionarydevelopment of traditional class-rooms, especially those of a specialnature such as physics or chemistrylaboratories it is somewhat lesssuccessful in the rapid introductionof new types Of spaces, such as mediacenters where there is little or nodomestic experience.

The Ministry of Education has a. small. group of architects and engi--neers but has no research teams orlaboratories. To solve problems suchas the development of requirements

for new types of spaces and equipmentthe Ministry staff is utilized andassistance is sought from otherministries. CSTB is relied upon tosolve technical problems related toschool buildings. Performance re-quirements are established wherepossible and acoustical, fire andthermal requirements are expressed inthese terms. Security and hygienerequirements are expressed onlypartially in performance terms.Where performance levels cannot berationally established or testscannot be devised to measure achievedlevels of performance, then require-ments are stated in prescriptivestandard terms.

-27

School Building Features

1. Location and Site Plan

The schools are generally locat-ed on relatively generous sitessufficient to provide room for ini-tial construction and expansion ofthe school, ancillary physical edu-cation and community-use buildings,parking and playgrounds. In addi-tion, a residence is often providedfor the principal on the same site.

©n-site vehicular and pedestriantraffic is tiell segregated. Con-ventional playgrounds are providedand are designed for staff control ofstudent activities. In addition tothe conventional playground, thereexists in many cases an enclosedinterior court designed for lessstrenuous activities such as concertsand theatrical productions. Closeattention is paid to siting buildingsin order to minimize negative sitefeatures such as noise and wind.

2. Building Plan

Since the secondary schoolbuilding is most often situated ona generous site, it generally is ofone or two story construction. TheFrench .ideal is not to create largeschools of 1500 to 2000 pupils, butrather to keep the size around 900.In low density areas schools areoften combined to reach this sizeand become "polyvalent" (servingmore than one standard educationalaaa,group, e.g., nursery and primary).When this is done, facilities suchas cafeterias, kitchens, assemblyhalls, and physical education build-ings are shared by the two groups.The arrangement of spaces in theschools is not surprising but is

generally well handled. (There areexceptions to this, however, when arelatively inflexible structuralsystem or other design problemcauses a poor fit between form andfunction.) Various elements aregrouped logically according to func-tion, and the buildings are easyto "learn" there is no confusionas to where things are.

The tradition of individualclassrooms for instruction by theteacher persists, but there is a newemphasis on responsive student in-volvement. Large and small multi-use spaces and media centers arewidely used and are also shared bythe two age groups. School buildingconstruction money comes from onefund and school equipment comes outof another appropriation generallyprovided over several years. Forthat reason, the science laboratoriesand media centers are often ill-equipped byany standards, and sufferparticularly by U.S. standards.Circulation spaces including stairsare generous and particular attentionis paid to fire safety and firesafety design; e.g. signage, light-ing, and protected means of egress.

3. Structure

Reinforced concrete, cast-in-place, and several varieties ofprecast concrete dominated the con-struction scene. All twelve schoolsvisited made extensive use of con-crete and only two of the twelve useany significant quantity of othermaterials. The Educational andCultural Center at Istres utilizes asteel rationalized-traditional formof construction, i.e., rolled steel

aLe, atet.aal

Cultural Center at I

Nursery School at -y

shapes and steel deck, stabilizedwith exposed diagonal bracing bothvertically and horizontally; and thenursery school at Rumilly uses lami-nated wood beams and conventionalwood roof framing to achieve a do-mestic scale and character. Cast-in-situ concrete is of good, but notoutstanding, quality. Pre-cast

L

Nursery School at Rumilly

concrete is of excellent quality andin many cases is given no "cosmetic"finish. The heat loss through con-crete floor systems over unheated, orexterior spaces appeared to be aproblem and was diminished somewhatthrough the insertion of rigid woodfiber panels into the coffers orchannels of the floor system.

29

4. Building Envelope

Exterior walls are most oftenof concrete and are produced in awide variety of forms, textures andcolors. Large concrete exterior wallpanels and deep concrete beltcoursesbetween the window heads and roofline are often heavily textured toadd interest and to visually unifydisparate elements. In some casesthe large panels contain windowsformed into the panel themselves,whereas in other cases the window isjoined in a conventional manner toadjacent vertical wall panels androof or floor panels. The windowsare mostly horizontal sliding or ofthe "Italian" pattern, which allowsthe head of the window to tip intoward the room about six inches toprovide ventilation and also to swinginto the room about a vertical axisfor cleaning. This latter stylewindow is extensively used and isavailable both in aluminum and wood.Almost universally windows areshielded from vandalism, excessiveheat exchange and glare by means ofwood, metal or plastic slats whichroll up into a box placed above thewindow head. In many cases thisexterior device can be tipped out atthe bottom to provide a solar shadefor the window while still providingnatural ventilation.

The majority of the school roofsare generally flat (having a slopeless than 1/2" per foot), but thereare two examples of sloped roofs -one in concrete(Pontcharra) and onein wood (Rumilly) to give regionalcharacter, but both were pre-elementary schools, having broaderlocal conception and financing thansecondary schools. Extensive useis made of sky lights in circulation

30

areas, places of assembly and work-shops, and "Pyrodomes" are used forventing in case of fire. The comrhination of extensive fenestrationand sky lights provides great quanti-ties of natural light into the build-ing. In most cases the head of thewindow comes very close to, if notflush with, the ceiling and providesnatural light deep into the room.This, coupled with reflections fromrelatively light colored interiorfinishes, often provides all theillumination necessary.

Skylights

5. Finishes and Equipment

Exterior and interior finishesare generally good and of types thatrequire little maintenance. Heavy-duty floors in circulation spaces areeither ceramic tile, terrazzo, orflexible composition floor tileapproximately one-half meter on aside. In places of assembly, mediacenters and libraries extensive useis made of carpeting. Partitions areoften of concrete or masonry unitsexposed or plastered or gypsum boardwith a sprayed on finish. Color is aprominent feature of the schoolsparticularly in the assembly andcirculation areas. Sometimes thestrong, raw colors are very success-ful, but often they provide a dis-sonance that detracts from some ofthe better interiors. Acousticalcorrection is provided on ceilings ofspecial classrooms and is required inplaces of assembly. Acousticalseparation between spaces appears tobe very good but the acousticalcharacter of all spaces seems to bequite "live."

Equipment in many cases isreduced almost to a minimum. Asingle chalkboard, approximately 2meters wide by 1 meter tall, with achalk tray but otherwise with unboundedges, often serves as the 3olecommon display element in a class-room. This chalkboard is often light-ed by means -of a separately switchedpendant fixture suspended approxi-mately one meter in front of thetop edge of-the board. Science

equipMent and other specialized forms-of-equipment are of French design andmanufacture and are characteristi-

cally clean-lined and economical intheir use of materials. Seating andfurniture is often of an Americandesign manufactured under franchisein France.

6. Mechanical Systems

Heating systems in the schoolsconsist of electric resistance heat-ing, fossil-fueled hot water and steamsystems, or forced hot air systems.During the heating season artificialventilation is provided at the rateof three to four air changes perhour, or not less than 15 cubic metersper pupil per hour. There was noevidence of air conditioning in anyof the schools, but this lack iscausing a certain amount of discom-fort particularly in the southernregions. CSTB research is beingconducted on alternative methods ofproviding thermal comfort during hotweather and a presentation was madeto the U.S. team at C.E.S. 996 Henri-Boudon (Bollene) describing a low-cost"air-conditioning" process. In lieuof mechanical refrigeration, theyutilize intense mechanical ventila-tion providing 20 volumes of air perhour, taking advantage of the thermalinertia of the building with supple-mental air cooling by means of waterevaporation. In both summer andwinter the inlet velocity varies from2 to 5 meters per second, with therange of 3 to 4 meters per secondbeing most usual. This translatesinto approximately 60 feet per minutevelocity at the outlet, which theyfeel does not trouble the room occu-pants. The tempered air is pumpedinto each classroom high on the wallopposite the window wall aneis drawn

3 4

31

out through acoustically trappedopenings in bottom panels of thedoors. There is a perceptible breezeat the seats adjacent to the windowwall; but it is not uncomfortable orannoying.

Lighting and electrical distri-bution is most often handled quitesimply and directly in school build-ing construction. Artificial light-ing appears to be designed to sup-plement natural illumination.Fluorescent fixtures are used inclassrooms and incandescent else-where. Incandescent fixtures aremodest and unobtrusive except wherethey are used to accent design ele-ments, then the fixture and the lightit produces is playing a major role.

In the case of ceilings of precastconcrete, the electrical conductor,while insulated, is often run unpro-tected in the joint between twoadjacent slabs and emerges only toenter a surface-mounted junction boxto which the light fixture is se-cured. Overhead electrical distri-bution for typewriters, sewing mach-ines and other appliances is commonwith the final connection by means ofdrop cords into which the applianceis plugged. The overhead electricaldistribution system consists of Romexsupported on a pendant mounted per-forated metal channel. No sleeveswere provided to avoid chafing ofelectrical insulation on the roughedges of the steel channel.

Venti1it1 ystern

The Construction of SchoolFacilities in France

It became apparent that to graspthe ways and means of French schoolconstruction specifically, and theeducational process in general, itwould be necessary to understanddifferences which exist between theFrench system of school acquisitionand acquisition in the United States.

As mentioned earlier, notable ofthese differences, and the one whichpossibly most affects secondary schoolconstruction in France as compared tothat in the United States, is thecomplete centralization of alleducational and educational facilityplanning within the Ministry ofEducation located in Paris.

The major result of this central-ized decision-making, insofar asschool construction techniques areinvolved, is the development ofhighly industrialized buildingsystems. Prequalified by the Minis-try, the systems are individuallydeveloped and owned by contracting .

firms. An architect is often calledin to collaborate with either theMinistry of Education or the con-struction contractor in the develop-ment and utilization of a system. (A

similar such system in the U.S.A.would be a modified design/buildapproach to building construction.)This use of prequalified industrial-ized building systems, each of whichhas been developed through completearchitectural and engineering plan-ning phases, with continuing inputfrom professional research andMaterial testing programs, hasallowed the French Building Industry,following World War II, to greatlyincrease'Oroductivity, cost effect-iveness', quality control and overallconstruction excellence.

The team was impressed with theexamples of industrialized schoolbuilding systems visited. The itin-erary allowed for inspection of twomajor types of systems: precast con-crete and concrete frame; steel andsteel frame; to which can be addedwood, wood frame and masonry for- pre-elementary schools. In virtuallyevery instance it was noted thatgreat attention and care were givento detail at both design and construc-tion phases. Most ways and methodsof detailing, handling and construc-ting the roofing, ceiling, interiorpartitions, cabinetry, millwork,finishes, sitework, etc, vary littlefrom practices in the United States.All of these items, under the Frenchmanner, are easily coordinated andcollated as a system within a systemto become part of parts of any one ofthe above mentioned 32 industrializedbuilding systems.

It was apparent that many bene-fits are accruing to French schoolconstruction as a result of an ad-vanced research effort. Singlemembrane and upside-down roofingsystems are successful examples.Other benefits include a retractableand adjustable exterior window blindand shutter system, as well as thework in heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems at the CollegeHenri-Boudon in Bollene.

In isolated instances there is apossible need to give additionalresearch and investigation to class-room lighting levels, a broaderbuilding energy conservation program,sound and noise level control atstudent occupied spaces and profesional selection of color schemesthe interior and exterior of someschool buildings.

at

33

Several important questions wereraised by the team members from timeto time concerning the school con-struction contracting firms and thevarious ways they are effected asparticipants in the French construc-tion program. The subjects are:

1. Responsibilities Assigned tothe Contractor

The responsibilities of theFrench construction contractor arelegally defined and determined on thebasis of two articles of the FrenchCivil Code, sometimes referred to asthe Napoleonic Code.

In simplified terms, the firstrelevant article of the code statesthat, should a building be proveddefective in any way or manner due toerrors or omissions in design and/orconstruction, within a period of tenyears after completion of construc-tion, the architects, contractors andany other individuals or firms boundto the building owner by 'a construc-tion contract shall be responsible.

The second article states thatthe ten year period of responsibil-ity, or guarantee period, referencedabove, applies only to the structur-al, roofing and weatherproofingaspects of the building, or thoseparts of the building normally calledrough work. The parts of the buildingreferred to as smaller work areguaranteed for a period of two yearsonly. Included are joinery, cabinet-work, partitions, plumbing, heatingand electrical installations.

In the event litigation arisesfrom a violation, or an allegedviolation of the contract, the casecan be resolved in one of two kindsof courts.

France has a double order ofjurisdictions: civil jurisdictionsand administrative jurisdictions.Civil jurisdictions resolve litiga-tion between particulars and admin-istrative-jurisdictions handle liti-gation where administration in thelarge sense is implied. Administra-

e jurisdiction is constituted bythe administrative tribunal, judgesof the first order, and by the councilof the state.

If the client or owner of abuilding is the State or a publicagency, the applicable court is theConseil D'Etat. This court does notjudge as to the "Letter" of thecontract, but as to the "Intentions"of the concerned parties. This isbrought about because the contractoris considered first to be in theState's service, since before he is acontractor he is a citizen. Thecontractor is ordinarily consideredto be more competent and experiencedthan the officials representing theState, with whom he must deal.Consequently, when an unforeseenevent occurs during the constructionprocess, the contractor must take allmeasures required to protect thework, even if the required measuresappear to be against his immediateinterest. At a later time he may askthe State to repay him. The ConseilD'Etat is known for being extremelyslow, and in some instances thecontractor must wait several yearsbefore the court releases its deci-sion. The State does eventually pay,but the contractor must be preparedto wait.

When the client or buildingowner is a private entity, contractdisputes will be judged by the second,kinckyRf court, or the Court of Com-

coerce. In this court, only the"Letter" of the contract is bindingupon the parties. Consequently, onlythat which is written is bindingunless the contractor has acted incontradiction with a public regula-tion.

2. The Contractor's L W Liabilities

The contractor, as a citizen ofFrance, is bound by the generalduties and obligations resulting fromthe laws which apply to any citizen.This set of laws is called the CivilLiability and is quite comprehensive.As far as his activity as a contrac-tor is concerned, his specificresponsibility, and thereforeliability, is governed by the arti-cles referred to under Responsibili-ties of the Contractor above.

3. Labor and Labor Concerns

Over all of France the LaborCode rules and regulates the rela-tions between the employer and hisemployees.

In addition, for each professionand recognized business endeavor acollective agreement or ConventionCollective has been discussed andsigned between the employers asso-ciation on one hand and the employeesunion on the other, both being repre-sentative and represented at theNational level. The associationrepresenting French contractors andbuilders is aptly named ConventionCollective de la Federation duffatiment.

This collective agreement, atthe National level, establishes thebases of the labor contract regardingholidays retirement, welfare, senior-

ity and other fringe benefits. Anadditional agreement, involving thesame parties at the regional level,determines the minimum salary or wagerate guaranteed for each work orlabor classification.

In essence, the labor code whichincorporates the laws and rules andthe professional collective agree-ment, are binding upon the contractoror employer as well as his workerpersonnel.

4. Contractor Insurance Consideration

It is compulsory in France foremployers to have in effect, at alltimes, two kinds of insurance socialsecurity and automobile (company andindividual). The implementation andenforcement of the insurance laws,rules and regulations fall under bothcivil and criminal court jurisdic-tions.

The social security insuranceprogram, of Federal (or National)Government origination, is designedto protect the individual against therisks of illness, accident and death,and provides for retirement benefits.It is compulsory for all Frenchworkers.

It is the prerogative of theindividual employer to decide whetheror not he desires additional types ofinsurance such as fire, casualty,liability, etc.

It is normal practice for Frenchconstruction firms, on their ownprerogative, to carry adequate lia-bility insurance coverage and pro-tection when concerned with the twotypes of guarantee imposed by the two

35

articles of the Civil Code referencedunder Responsibilities Assigned tothe Contractor. This type of insur-ance is usually acquired only forlarger construction projects (includ-ing schools) and not the smallerprojects such as individual familyhousing units.

5. Construction Practices and Approaches

The usual approach for a Frenchconstruction firm seeking work on aspecific project is to submit a bidor cost proposal in answer to aninquiry or request for proposal (RFP)issued by the project owner or hisrepresentative. The owner will haveacquired the services of an architectand commissioned him to design theproject prior to release of the RFP.The architect will have completeddrawings through the architecturaldocument stage (design development inthe United States) and, in addition,will have prepared a tender file. Asa general rule, the French architectsexecute design development drawingsat a scale of 2 cm/m but will releaseneither a bill of quantities norworking drawings. Therefore, thecontractor must arrive at the bill ofquantities, the appropriate struc-tural system calculations and acomplete project cost analysis.Prior to the start of, or duringconstruction, the client will requestlump sum prices to be revised inaccordance with the constructioncontract escalation clause indexespublished by the French Government.

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

contractual arrangement described forthe following reasons:

o When the contractor is unfamiliarwith the architect and his work,it is difficult to evaluate thetype of building he designs.

o Each construction contractoruses particular construction equip-ment in his own particular way togain the experience and capabil-ity to better and more efficientlyaccomplish the work for which hecontracts.

o When the architect doles out theorders by lots on a sizableproject, the contractor is unable,at a given time, to determine thefuture scope of the over-allproject. As a result, large partsof the construction cost are notunder his control and, in allprobability, will not meet hisexpectations.

For these reasons, and more, manycontractors with backlogs of experi-ence prefer to work on projects in aturn-key manner' in order to, as thegeneral contractor, act and executefor all the required trades. In sodoing the contracting firm managementcan state to the client or owner thetotal scope of the project work, andalso ascertain it for themselves.

Many contractors prefer to quotea project cost when the owner origi-nates a building program and anaccompanying fiscal or cost objective.The contractor can then offer abuilding for which his firm hasexecuted the drawings. Much the samekind of arrangement exists in theUnited States under a Design/BuiProcess or System.

9

This procurement method has beenused for nearly two decades by theMinistry of Education, the Ministryof Health, the post office and otherFrench public authorities. Theprocedure involves inviting tendersthrough a contest or competition. Inan instance of this sort, the con-tractor will collaborate with ar-chitects who are fully aware of thefirm's construction methods, havingwori-ed with that particular contract-ing firm over a long period of timeon a large number of projects.Several French contractors haveenjoyed success on the internationalscene using the above describeddesign/build approach. The teamquickly became aware of a number oflarge and small differences, addres-sed above, which exist between theFrench way of school acquisition andconstruction and that of the UnitedStates, i.e., centralization, use ofthe everpresent 7.2H module, in- .

dustrialized building systems.

The team also became aware ofthe tremendous progress which hastaken place in the French buildingindustry since World War II. Much ofthis progress is attributable to thesame factors found to be fundamental¢o the success of a major part of the

nch building industry - the schoolbuilding program. The practicalapplication of the centralizeddecision-making process, competent andcapable design/build teams andindustrialized building systems(particularly those using reinforcedconcrete and precast concrete) madeit possible for the Trench people toliterally rebuild, in a limited time,an entire national school systemlargely destroyed by the ravages ofwar and time.

After accommodating the ratherlarge difference of centralizationversus decentralization, the Americanteam found no other marked differ-ences in most of the constructionmethods and approaches used in eitherof the school systems. The buildersin each country have to sufferthrough much the same kind of gomental red tape, labor problems,insurance and liability woes andtight construction time schedules.The French school builders demon-strate a remarkable ability to over-come these kinds of difficulties, andyet complete a well designed aridconstructed school facility in ap-proximately half the time required inthe United States and at a consider-ably lower cost.

Many construction and designtechniques considered to have beenpeculiar to the school buildingindustry in the United States havehad long term use in French schoolconstruction. Design/build, valueengineering, life cycle costing, con-struction management, energy COD-servative construction and design,and solar and wind energy design arebut a few.

37

Conclusions and Recommendations

In this report the respectiveteam reactions and opinions representthose of the individuals themselvesin accord with their own personalinterests, background and experience.There were many instances in whichthe team recognized very basicdifferences between the French andAmerican systems in the planning,design and utilization of schoolfacilities and the reasons for them.On the other hand, the similaritiesin overall attitudes and philosophieswere quite striking.

At nearly every one of theschool sites visited by the team, theplanners, designers and builders ofeach were willing and open in theirdiscussion of all aspects of localand State relationships in the totaldesign, support and operation of theschool system. It was interestingand refreshing to note the eagernesswith which the French team pursuedthe kinds of problems both countriesare facing and possible ways and

38

means of solving them. Among themare the rapidly rising costs ofconstruction and operation, coupledwith decreasing enrollments in theschools. Shortages of fossil fuelsand the consequent high costs ofenergy have been and will continue tobe a mutual problem to be solved.Concerns for life and fire safetystandards in school buildings, andalso designs for physically andmentally handicapped were given muchattention in the team discussions.There is also a growing awareness ofthe community-school philosophy andthe planning and design necessary forit.

The purposes for the exchange ofvisits of educators and architect/engineer/designers and builders ofeducational facilities in the twocountries are, in the opinion of theAmerican team, well founded andprovide the potential for improvedsystems of education and buildingresearch in both countries.

NE15-114A (REV. 7.731

U.S.DEPT.OPC tMM.BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

-SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR RE r Nt7.

NBSIR 78 -1521

2. Gov AccessionNo.

3 Recipient's Accession No.

4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE

FRENCH SCHOOLS - a report of the U.S. Team visit to Francefrom November 13 to 23, 1977

5. Publication Date

March 1979

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

P. Driscoll Coordinator _

8. Performing Organ. Report Na.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDSDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEWASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Pro - Ta k /Work Una No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)U. S. Department of EducationSchool Construction Branch400 Maryland Avenue, SWWashington, D.C. 20202

13 Type of Report & PeriodCovered

14. Sponsoring ncy Code

. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

6. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most si iiificont information. If document includes a significantbibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

By June 1970, the National Bureau of Standards and the Centre Scientifique et Tech-nique du Batiment had effectively begin a cooperative program in building technology.The purpose of this program was to increase jointly the French and United Statescapability to develop building sciences and technology; seek answers to significantbuilding problems; and reduce costly and wasteful duplication of parallel nationalefforts.. This collaboration has provided opportunities for representatives of bothnations to exchange ideas, skills, information and techniques in attacking problemsof particular mutual interest.. These opportunities have included the exchange ofselected literature, with translations of main papers and publications; theexchange of long-term interns working in the organization of the other country on sub-jects requiring special facilities; work by one organization for the benefit of theother not as well equipped, either in staff or in equipment; and the exchange ofmissions of experts from one country to the other to study special work. It isprecisely this exchange of missions of experts, to study specific work, that producedthe report which follows.

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

1_ AVAILABILITY

r .! For Official D riburion.

IT Order From Sup. of Doc.,Washington, D.C. 20402,

110 Order From National TechnicalSpringfield, Virginia 22151

Unlimited

Do Not Release to NTIS

U.S, Government Printing OfficeSD Car. No C13.

19. SECURITY CLASS(Tills REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

39

20. SECURITY CLASS(Tills PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

$4.50Information Service (NTIS)

U5-_COMM-DC 29042-P74

a Id. 1,. GOVERNNtENT PHINTINO OFFICE: 157521,1-C