মুখ্য AAESPH Review Modifying School Buildings for the Severely Handicapped: A School Accessibility Survey
একটি সমস্যা রিপোর্ট করুনThis book has a different problem? Report it to us
Check Yes if Check Yes if Check Yes if Check Yes if
you were able to open the file
the file contains a book (comics are also acceptable)
the content of the book is acceptable
Title, Author and Language of the file match the book description. Ignore other fields as they are secondary!
Check No if Check No if Check No if Check No if
- the file is damaged
- the file is DRM protected
- the file is not a book (e.g. executable, xls, html, xml)
- the file is an article
- the file is a book excerpt
- the file is a magazine
- the file is a test blank
- the file is a spam
you believe the content of the book is unacceptable and should be blocked
Title, Author or Language of the file do not match the book description. Ignore other fields.
Change your answer
Modifying school buildings for the severely handicapped: A school accessibility survey Fred P. Orelove Cheryl D. Hanley This article describes considerations in modifying school buildings for maximum accessibility forse verely handicapped students. A field-tested survey designed for use by school administrators is also included in its entirety. Service delivery for the severely handicapped has been influenced recently by two major factors. The first is the implementation of those guidelines in Public Law 94-142 that state that all handicapped children shall have available to them a free, appropriate public education and that procedures must be established to educate handicapped children with their nonhandicapped peers. The second factor, which has helped to hasten the implementation of the federal mandate, derives from several "model" school districts that have demon strated that educating severely handicapped with nonhandicapped students in the public school setting is beneficial to the school administrator, the student, the parents and to society (Certo, Belmore, Crowner, & Brown, 1976; Crowner, 1975; Tilley, 1973). One such model within the Madison, Wisconsin, public schools has been termed "zero exclusion" (Crowner, 1975), in which "no student, regardless of This research was supported in part by Grant No. HEW/OEG 007602983 while the senior author was at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Joan Fortschneider, coordinator of the East Central Cooperative for the Severely and Profoundly Handicapped, Webber School, Urbana, Illinois, in the development of the survey. AAESPH flew'ew, 1979,4(3), 219-236 220 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 the degree or condition of his handicap, is denied access to the services of public school personnel" (p. 3). All severely handicapped students in Madison are edu cated in public school with their less handicapped peers. It is reasonable to assume that zero exclusion will becom; e the common ap proach in school systems across the country over the next several years, to meet the requirements established in P.L. 94-142. The administrator's task becomes how best to facilitate the transition of severely handicapped children into the public schools. This task becomes somewhat involved when one realizes that these children often are not toilet trained; cannot walk, see, speak, and/or hear; and may manifest a variety of medical and physical problems (Sontag, Burke, & York, 1973). Many such students will require specially designed materials and/or equipment within a modified environment. Unfortunately, most school buildings currently are not designed to accommo date the severely handicapped student. They were constructed for ambulatory students who have few sensory or motor impairments or for those students who have some degree of physical disability, but who are generally able to self-locomote (Molloy, 1975; Russo, 1974). Stairways, unmodified bathroom facilities, curbs, and conventional buses all present major obstacles to the physically impaired individual and foster dependence upon able-bodied adults or peers. If severely handicapped students are to be served in less restrictive placements, the public school adminis trator faces the responsibility of redesigning and modifying existing facilities to accommodate them. Moreover, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 stipulates that all new facilities are required to be constructed to be readily accessible to and useable by handicapped persons. Further, programs conducted in existing facilities must be made accessible, by structural changes if necessary. In satisfying the spirit and the intent of the law, the administrator must consider the special problem of achieving an interior and exterior school environment that will adequately serve both handi capped and nonhandicapped students. This paper presents a survey that administrators can use to identify specific structures and materials in schools that need modification to enable severely handi capped students to use the building as independently as possible. Preceding the survey, educators must consider several factors before redesigning and modifying existing public school buildings to accommodate both severely handicapped and nonhandicapped students. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL SERVING PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS There are at least four major principles upon which the design of a physical plant serving physically disabled students is based (Yuker, Revenson, & Fracchia, 1968). These include: 1. The range of movement available. This term describes the amount of space and direction in which a person can manipulate the environment. Range of move ment could be limited as a result of a specific physical disability (e.g., cerebral palsy) and/or confinement in a prosthetic or orthotic device (e.g., wheelchair, wrist splint). Orelove & Hanley 221 The range of movement influences the distances between objects and/or the height of placement. 2. The strength of the person. Since disabled persons usually have less physical strength than able-bodied persons, certain aspects of the school environ ment, especially those that move (e.g., doors), should be designed with considera tion of the weight involved and the type of movement required (e.g., push vs. pull). 3. The dimensions of prosthetic devices. For wheelchairs, in particular, impor tant factors to be considered include the turning radius of an individual chair and the number of wheelchairs likely to use the facility at any given time. 4. The use of materials that show minimum signs of wear. Since many prostheses (e.g., wheelchairs, braces, crutches) are made of hard materials, the school should be designed to protect its furniture, walls, and doors. Although these four principles are helpful with respect to the student's physical condition, the school should also be modified to allow the student's personal growth and individuality. It is desirable, for instance, to enable children to experience the rhythm of the day and the change in weather and seasons (Wolfensberger, 1972). Provisions should thus be made for large and/or low screened windows (to prevent intake of insects) and for accessible outdoor spaces around the school building. The administrator and architect should also avoid overreacting to the special physical needs of severely handicapped students by creating a sterile, "abuseresistant" school environment (Wolfensberger, 1972), characterized by indestructi ble walls and floors; unbreakable, shatterproof glass; the heaviest duty furniture and equipment; shielded light fixtures; and extensive soundproofing. Such an environ ment tends to perpetuate maladaptive behaviors and thus reinforces the notion that the students for whom the building or classroom was designed are deviant. INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS OF SEVERELY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS In addition to their physical impairments, students classified as severely handicapped have instructional and curricular needs which impinge philosophically and pragmatically upon the school's physical layout. These needs include (a) perfor mance of instruction in a variety of natural settings and (o) demonstration of performance of skills among a variety of people and materials. 1. Delivery of instruction in natural settings. It cannot be assumed that, be cause a severely handicapped student performs a skill in an artificial (school) setting, that he can also perform that skill in a "natural" setting (i.e., that place in which the skill is generally expected to occur) (Brown, Nietupski, & HamreNietupski, 1976). Instruction, therefore, should be delivered in the natural environ ment whenever feasible. This implies abandoning the use of "special areas" such as home economics rooms and school-based vocational workshops in favor of natural or foster homes and on-the-job training. Additionally, since natural, extra-school settings contain large numbers of nonhandicapped people, severely handicapped students need to practice interact ing in socially appropriate ways with these individuals. Therefore, schools should be modified so that severely handicapped people are not accommodated solely in restricted areas of the building (e.g., within a separate wing), but in every area where 222 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 social and physical integration with nonhandicapped peers is possible. Ideally, a physically integrated building would help avoid the token gesture of grouping handi capped and nonhandicapped peers only during lunch and recess. 2. Performance of skills across people and materials. Just as skills must be taught in a number of settings, they must also be verified by more than one person with different materials. With a variety of teachers and support staff instructing the students, room arrangements need to become more flexible (Gray, 1975). This is especially true for students in wheelchairs, many of whom require a larger floor space in which to maneuver. Brown, Scheuerman, Cartwright, and York (1973) demonstrate the use of floor space and moveable furniture in two different class rooms for multihandicapped children. A second implication of the requirement that instruction be delivered by a variety of school personnel is that roles traditionally assigned specifically to a teacher, physical therapist, or language therapist are no longer assumed by that person alone. Instead, a physical therapist might work in the classroom during mealtime, for instance, to show the teacher how to facilitate lip closure during feeding. The classroom, therefore, becomes the focal point of much of the school day as support personnel help to deliver "integrated" therapy (Sternat, Nietupski, Lyon, Messina, & Brown, 1976). Thus, it becomes unnecessary to send the pupil out of the school building (e.g., to a hospital) for therapy or to maintain a large and separate set of rooms for the staff and equipment associated with each ancillary service (e.g., occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy). DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SURVEY The accompanying survey was designed to enable the school administrator to readily determine which parts of the school need to be modified to accommodate the severely impaired student. It was field-tested in the summer of 1977 in a public elementary school that was preparing to open five classrooms for severely handi capped students in the fall. Based on feedback received from teachers and adminis trators throughout the year, the survey was revised and refined in the spring of 1978. It is anticipated that the survey should be completed by a team, including an administrator, a teacher, a parent, and at least one student for whom the modifica tions will be made. The survey is divided into two major sections: EXTERIOR and INTERIOR. Several items (e.g., clothes washers, vending machines) may appear to be "luxury" items to some school districts and were included for those schools that do have complete facilities. They are included also in the hope that schools will give serious consideration to purchasing or building those materials that represent the difference between an adequate and an excellent program. All statements in the survey have been constructed so that a "Yes" response is desirable. Any item which is answered by a "No" response should be investigated further to determine what possible alterations need to be made to comply with federal and state laws. For this reason, space for comments is provided following each major section of the survey. If the school needs extensive revisions, it may be desirable for the school board to assemble a planning team including the building principal, selected teachers, stu- Orelove & Hantey 223 dents, parents, custodians, representative citizens, curriculum specialists, educa tional consultants, and an architect. Several limitations of the survey should be noted. First, no items pertaining to design and aesthetics are included. Obviously, these should not be overlooked in making building modifications, since they may have a profound influence on the overall atmosphere of the school. Second, the list of supplies and equipment is not meant to be exhaustive. Physically handicapped students typically require equip ment adapted to their individual needs, a list of which could not be adequately represented in this survey. Third, the survey is not an official document, but is intended merely as a guide. Further information concerning accessibility and build ing design may be obtained through the National Center for a Barrier-Free Environ ment. Finally, while this paper has stressed the necessity to make special accommo dations for the severely handicapped student, It is important to remember it is not the physical facilities or equipment that make a good program. In fact, there is a real danger that special provisions for children . . . may be made too specialized and that students may become so surrounded with gadgetry designed to make things easier for them that they never learn to cope with the world outside the classroom walls. (Wilson, 1964, p. 511) CONCLUSION The article lists considerations related to the modification of existing school buildings to accommodate severely handicapped students. As a guide to adminis trations facing the need to adapt their schools, a school accessibility survey is presented to help identify those areas requiring changes. It should be noted that the survey is neither designed nor intended for those individuals interested in building self-contained facilities for the handicapped. We feel that such a segregationist practice cannot be justified educationally, morally, legally, or economically. REFERENCES Brown, L, Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. The criterion of ultimate functioning and public school services for severely handicapped students. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me! New directions for serving the severely handicapped. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1976. Brown, L, Scheuerman, N., Cartwright, S., & York, R. The design and implementation of an empirically based instructional program for young severely handicapped students: Toward the rejection of the exclusion principle. Madison, Wise: Madison Public Schools, 1973. Certo, N., Belmore, K., Crowner, T., & Brown, L. A review of secondary level educational service delivery models for severely handicapped students in the Madison Public Schools. In L. Brown, N. Certo, K. Belmore, & T. Crowner (Eds.), Madison's alternative forzerò exclusion: Papers and programs related to public school services for secondary age severely handicapped students. Madison, Wise: Madison Public Schools, 1976. 224 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 Crowner, T. T. A public school program for severely and profoundly handicapped students: Zero exclusion. In L. Brown, T. Crowner, W. Williams, & R. York (Eds.), Madison's alternative for zero exclusion: A book of readings. Madison, Wise: Madison Public Schools, 1975. Gray, G. Education service delivery-Architectural considerations. Paper presented at Na tional Association of Retarded Citizens, National Training Meeting on Education of the Severely and Profoundly Mentally Retarded, New Orleans, April, 1975. Molloy, L. The handicapped child in the everyday classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 1975, 56, 337-340. Russo, J. Mainstreaming handicapped students: Are your facilities suitable? American School and University, 1974, 47, 25-32. Sontag, E., Burke, P. J., & York, R. Considerations for serving the severely handicapped in the public schools. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1973, 8, 20-26. Sternat, J., Nietupski, J., Lyon, S., Messina, R., & Brown, L. Integrated vs. isolated therapy models. In L. Brawn, N. Scheuerman, & T. Crowner (Eds.), Madison's alternative forzerò exclusion: Toward an integrated therapy model for teaching motor, tracking and scanning skills to severely handicapped students. Madison, Wise: Madison Public Schools, 1976. Wilson, M. Crippled and neurologically impaired children. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.), Exceptional children in the schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964. Wolfensberger, W. Normalization .Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Health, 1972. Yuker, H. E., Revenson, J., & Fracchia, J. F. The modification of educational equipment and curriculum for maximum utilization by physically disabled students. Albertson, N.Y.: Human Resources Center, 1968. School accessibility survey Name of School Address Team Completing Survey District Date Team Completing Survey I. EXTERIOR A. WALKS 1. Surface a. Continuous common surface not interrupted by steps or abrupt level changes? b. Walks blend with driveways and parking lots by means of curb cuts? (see Figure 1) c. Surface of walk firm, stable and of nonslip material? i. No long stretches of material such as brick or stone? Yes No Orelove & Hanlev Figure 1 Curb cuts ii. Joint width no more than Vz in? iii. Surfacing material flush with adjoining surface? iv. Surfacing material laid on concrete? d. Gratings, manhole covers, and other access covers outside of walkways? e. Hazardous areas marked? i. Barriers marked by different color from walk? ii. Barriers at least 6 inches wide? 2. Walkways at least 36 inches wide? 3. Termination of walkways at building entrances a. Walks level at building entrances? b. Sloped walks end in level platforms at doorways? i. Platform/level area 5' x 5' if door swings out towards walk? ii. Platform/level area 3' x 5' if door does not swing toward walk? COMMENTS: 225 226 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 B. RAMPS 1. Location a. At least one primary entrance/exit? b. At all emergency exits? Nonslip surface, such as broom finish concrete? Slope a. 1 in 15 slope? b. All ramps in rampway have some slope? 4. Width at least 3 ft.? 5. Ramp levels off at least 6 ft. at bottom? 6. Level platform at 30-ft. intervals on long ramp? 7. Rest platform at least 4 ft. long? 8. Platform at turns? 9. Level off at least 1 ft. before meeting floor at top of ramp? 10. Platform extends 1 ft. beyond each side of door? 11. Handrail on both sides? 12. Firm and stable (ramp and handrail(s))? COMMENTS: C. STAIRS (see Figure 2) 1. Steps at least 4 in. high? 2. Rise not more than 6V2 in.? 3. Tread at least IOV2 in.? 4. Inclination not more than 35 degrees? Figure 2 Stairs 5. Vertical rise of flight not more than 4 ft.? 6. Line of nosing at least 1 ft. on plan to point where adjacent wall returns? 7. Door does not obstruct top or bottom step? 8. Door does not open directly onto top of staircase? 9. Nonslip, nongiare surface? 10. Carpet securely attached? 11. At least one handrail? 12. Handrail extends at least 18 in. beyond top and bottom steps? COMMENTS: D. HANDRAILS AND BALUSTRADES 1. Location a. At all ramps? b. At all stairs? 2. Securely fixed? 3. Brackets fixed to underside of rail? 4. Not more than IV2 in. in diameter? 5. At least IV2 in. free space between wall and rail? 6. 24-28 in. from floor? 7. Smoothly finished hardwood? 8. Metal handrails covered with thermoplastic material? 9. Continuous over landings? 10. Continuous past windows? 11. Extend at least 1 Vz ft. at each end of ramp/stairs? COMMENTS: E. ENTRANCE/EXITS 1. Doors a. Width of doorway at least 32 in. clear space? (see Figure 3) b. Double doors i. Handles on both leaves? ii. One leaf when open allows at least 32 in. clear space? c. Threshold flush with floor? d. Clear and level area on both sides of door? e. Door opens to outside? f. Door pushed/pulled with minimum effort? g. Handles (see Figure 4) i. 27-31 in. from floor? ii. Pull handle? iii. Lever handle? h. Protected from high winds? i. Doors do not swing into pedestrian pathway? 228 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 y -jjn- Λ \ / v Figure 3 Clear space 2. Door mats and gratings a. Provided at accessible entrances that may become slippery when wet? b. Recessed so top is flush with surface? c. Openings on snow and sand trap gratings not more than % in. wide? d. Grating surfaces level with adjacent floor? 3. Automatic doors a. Delay feature to allow for clear passage before swing shut? b. Mechanism does not project into door opening? c. Outward opening doors protected by guardrails? 4. Clearance between crash bar and door at least 20 in.? COMMENTS: SITE FIXTURES 1. Permanent fixtures (e.g., signs, standards, mailboxes, trash cans, seating, planters, tables) allow free passage and are nonhazardous? 2. Seating space allowed next to benches to accommodate wheelchair? 3. Some benches designed with back supports and armrests? COMMENTS: G. TRANSPORTATION 1. Passenger/bus loading zones a. As close as possible to shortest accessible path of travel to main entrance? b. Unobstructed space parallel to vehicle to allow loading and unloading? c. No change in level between passenger loading zone and road? d. Change of surface texture to indicate boundary of passenger waiting area? 2. Vehicles a. Bus i. Wheelchair lift? ii. Wheelchair spaces with only floor latches? iii. Nonskid floor? iv. Adequate supervision? v. Portable support seat inserts? vi. Seat belts? vii. Portable, adjustable foot rests? b. Taxi/car i. Seat belts? ii. Room to transport wheelchair? iii. Portable support seat inserts? iv. Portable, adjustable foot rests? COMMENTS: II. INTERIOR A. DOORS 1. Width of doorway at least 32 in. clear space? (see Figure 3) 2. Double doors a. Handles on both leaves? b. One leaf when open allows at least 32 in. clear space? 3. Threshold flush with door? 4. Clear and level area on both sides of door? 5. Door opens to outside? 6. Door pushed/pulled with minimum effort? 7. Handles (see Figure 4) a. 27-31 in. from floor to top of handle? 230 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 (P—) —I Cr* <3^= i=t Pull Handle Figure 4 Door handles b. Pull handle? c. Lever handle? COMMENTS: B. FLOORS 1. Tile a. Quarry tile impregnated with carborundum? 2. Carpet a. Short nap? b. Looped? c. Dense? d. Firmly attached? 3. Space to permit unrestricted wheelchair use? COMMENTS: C. CORRIDORS 1. At least 64 in. wide? 2. Wheelchair storage? 3. Lockers? a. Low, bar handles? b. Single and double tiered? 4. Public telephone? a. Handset 48 in. or less from floor? b. Amplifying controls? c. Push-button controls? d. Wall mounted? COMMENTS: Orelove & Hanley 231 D. ELEVATOR 1. Floor area at least 25 sq. ft. (5' x 5')? 2. Control buttons no higher than 33 in. from floor? 3. Prominent hold button? 4. Telephone or two-way communication system? 5. Handrails on three walls? 6. Handrails 24-28 in. from floor? 7. Automatic self-leveling elevator? 8. Unobstructed waiting area in front of doors? 9. Waiting area at least 6 ft. 3 in. deep? 10. No mats or gratings immediately in front of doors? 11. Durable materials on side elevator walls? 12. Minimum clear opening at least 28 in. between doors? 13. If automatic—delay action doors? COMMENTS: E. FIXTURES 1. Water fountain (bubbler) a. Top 20-24 in. from floor? b. Spout and controls located in front? c. Controls both hand and foot operated? d. Controls operate with minimal effort? e. Wall mounted? f. Slightly recessed? COMMENTS: F. CLASSROOM/LIBRARY Permanent structures 1. Closet/locker a. Door opened with minimum amount of effort? b. Handles 27-31 in. from floor? c. Pull handles? d. Height of first shelf level 30-33 in from floor? e. Height of hooks and/or closet bar 25-28 in. from floor? f. Single hook type? g. Locked with key lock? 2. Storage space a. Maximum height for child accessibility 30-33 in. from floor? b. Floor level storage? 3. Chalk board/bulletin board a. No ledge on board? b. Eraser/chalk receptable at side of board? 232 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 c. Maximum height of lower edge 20-23 in. from floor? Equipment 1. Static dividers available? 2. Movable dividers available? 3. Adjustable tables available for each room? a. Single? b. Double? 4. Adjustable cut-away tables available for each room? a. Single? b. Double? 5. Regular "primary" chairs available? a. User ages 3 to 6; maximum seat height 9-11 in.? b. User ages 6 to 12; maximum seat height 11-15 in.? c. User ages 12 to 18; maximum seat height 15-18 in.? 6. Fully adjustable kindergarten chairs available? 7. Bean bag chairs available (densely packed preferable)? 8. Specifically modified chairs available? 9. Mats in classroom? 10. Pillows in classroom? 11. Blankets in classroom? 12. Cushions for chairs? 13. Bolsters available? 14. Rolls in variety of sizes? 15. Wedges in variety of sizes? 16. Sand bags? 17. Movable mirrors in classroom? 18. Wheelchairs in a variety of sizes available? 19. Scooter boards in rooms for younger students? 20. Variety of walkers available? 21. Electric pencil sharpener? 22. Waterbed? 23. Maximum height of pencil sharpener 20-24 in. from floor? COMMENTS: H. CAFETERIA 1. Vending machines? a. Doors easy to pull? b. Punch button selection? c. Low coin slots? 2. Conveyor belt? a. Low? b. Under strict supervision? c. Remains motionless until full? 3. Low serving counter? 4. Suitable tables? Equipment 1. "Fruit picker" to reach goods and supplies on upper shelves? 2. Blender? 3. Modified utensils (to be adapted for individual student)? a. Built-up handles? b. Angled handles? c. Swivel handles? d. Coated? 4. Hard plastic cups? a. Rimmed? b. Cut-away cups? c. Spill-proof? 5. Plates a. Divided plates available? b. Divided plates with built-in food warmer available? c. Lipped plates available? 6. Plastic baby bottles available? 7. Appropriate bottle nipples available? a. Davo Wing? * b. Nuk Sauger? * 8. Drinking straw holders available? 9. Food guards available? 10. "Little Octopus" * suction holders available? 11. Utensil holders available? 12. "Sure Grip" * glass holders available? 13. Bibs available? COMMENTS: I. GYMNASIUM Permanent structures 1. Storage space available? 2. Variety of hook heights for nets? 3. Locker room facilities (shower and lockers)? a. Drains flush with floor? b. Floor nonslip ceramic tile? c. At Least two modified shower stalls? i. Stall size—3' x 3' x 6' IOV2"? 234 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Contoured seats? Seat 1 ft. 9 in. from floor? Seat 21/2 in. from wall? Handrails? Plumbing wall . a. Regular shower head? b. Hand-testing outlet with spray head? c. Chicago blade controls? d. Diversionary valve to direct water through hand-testing outlet or shower head? Equipment 1. Adjustable basketball hoops? 2. Stall bars? 3. Parallel bars? 4. Mats? 5. Full-length mirrors? COMMENTS: J. AUDITORIUM 1. Aisles at least 32 in. wide? 2. Ramp to stage? 3. Floor space behind stage? 4. Seats a. Stay down when unfolded? b. Arm rests? 5. Wheelchair spaces among seats throughout auditorium? 6. Slight slope in floor? COMMENTS: K. KITCHEN 1. Low preparation counter? 2. Floor level oven with window? 3. Low sink? 4. Sink handles modified? 5. Faucet and handles at side of sink? 6. Temperature indicator on oven and faucet? 7. Easy pull cabinet doors with low handles? 8. Doors on refrigerator and deep freeze open with minimum effort? 9. Low storage space? 10. Low shelves in pantry? COMMENTS: L. SUPPORT SYSTEMS 1. Draft free floor? 2. Classroom temperature easily regulated? Orelove & Hanley 235 3. Covered heat sources? 4. Classrooms well-ventilated? COMMENTS: M. OTHER Permanent structures 1. Office for support staff? 2. Office for parent educator/social worker? 3. Staff lounge? 4. Conference room for parent/staff meetings? 5. Health center/nurse's office? a. Large floor space? b. Refrigerator? c. Locked medicine storage? d. Cots? 6. Office for administrator/secretary? a. Low counter? b. Large floor space? c. Duplicating machine and other supplies? 7. Danger doors knurled for visually impaired? (see Figure 5) 8. Visual and auditory emergency alarm? Equipment 1. Low, wastebasket type trash cans? 2. Front loading washer and dryer? 3. Stop watches, clipboards and timers? COMMENTS: Figure 5 Knurling Knurllnp Knurling Pull Handle 236 AAESPH Review, Fall, 1979 Received July 20, 1978 Final acceptance February 26,1979 Fred P. Orelove, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, 805 Allen Hall, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506; Cheryl D. Hanley is a teacher of multiply impaired children, Danville, Illinois.